For quality direct democracy (Interview with Tibère Adler)

Le Regard Libre N° 14 - Jonas Follonier

This month, we return to liberal horizons with the French-speaking director of Avenir Suisse, who proposes reforming the right of initiative to improve the quality of our democracy. After studying law at the University of Geneva, Tibère Adler worked as a lawyer and manager. He has been Avenir Suisse's director for French-speaking Switzerland since 2014.

Le Regard Libre: Can you tell us about the Avenir Suisse foundation?

Tibère Adler: Avenir Suisse is a think tank. More precisely, we are a private, non-profit research institute. Our mission is to provide forward-looking studies on Switzerland's economic and other future. Our studies are designed to be objective, with a strong focus on figures. We are committed to liberal values, the most important of which is freedom and the responsibility that goes with it. We want individuals and companies to determine their own lives and take responsibility for the consequences of their choices.

You're one of those who want to reform the right of initiative. What problems do you see?

Firstly, we are increasingly subject to the risk of voting too much. The concept of voting too much may seem absurd in a democracy. However, we are finding that the number of initiatives is confusing the debate. In recent years, more initiatives have been accepted, but their implementation was, and still is, very complex. Secondly, there is a permanent campaign climate that demands a great deal of attention for initiatives, and not always to good effect... Basically, the popular initiative is a citizen's tool, not a party tool.

What are the main measures you recommend?

1. Strengthen checks on the validity of initiatives prior to signature collection.

2. Replace the supervisory body (currently Parliament) with a legitimate body to carry out this legal work, e.g. the State Chancellery.

3. In 1891, the year in which the popular initiative was introduced into the Federal Constitution, the number of signatures required for an initiative to be put to the vote was set at 50,000 (i.e. almost 8 % of the electorate). In 1978, the year women were granted the right to vote, this figure was doubled to 100,000. This figure, which is still in force today, reflects a reality that is almost one hundred and fifty years old. We need to adapt this figure to the evolution of the population, and therefore transform it into a percentage. We propose to set it at 4 % (the 100,000 corresponds to 1.7 %) for the constitutional initiative.

4. Introduce the legislative initiative at federal level. The people can now change the Constitution, but they should also be able to change laws. The Constitution is not designed to accommodate articles that we consider secondary. We propose setting the percentage for the legislative initiative at 2%.

5. In view of the systematic implementation problems with initiatives that have been accepted by the electorate, introduce a mandatory referendum for implementing legislation.

6. Vote on only one constitutional initiative per electoral consultation. This would calm things down and guarantee a careful, high-quality debate on each initiative. The example of Geneva speaks for itself: we had to vote on twelve different issues! This makes democracy more cumbersome.

I see that all your proposals are not about content, but about form.

Exactly. The content of initiatives must remain open. Some people want to restrict it, but we believe that it's the very essence of the initiative to want to change the existing rules. However, the facts are simple: in 150 years, 22 initiatives have been accepted, ten of them in recent years. But more is not necessarily better.

How much influence do you feel you have over politicians?

Parties shy away from supporting such initiatives because they feel there are few voters to be gained. Measures concerning the right of initiative are not seen as fertile electoral ground. Parliamentarians are always in a conflict of interest with initiatives, so they feel pushed around. It's Parliament that vets them beforehand, takes a political stance on them and has to pass implementing legislation if they are accepted. Nevertheless, the influence will be felt in the long term. I'm sure that the idea of more effective prior control will gain ground.

You call yourself a liberal. Is it really liberal to want to limit the voice of the people?

We believe that channelling the process without restricting content is precisely what benefits democracy. The funnel remains wide, which is quite liberal.

What about cantonal popular initiatives? Are you experiencing the same problems as at federal level?

No. There are isolated cases, but it seems that the volume has not increased in the same proportion. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, the political battle has partly shifted from the cantonal to the national level. Secondly, there is no tension between popular initiatives and fundamental rights: in fact, cantonal initiatives must respect federal law. This is due to federalism. Conversely, even if a federal initiative were to violate the Constitution, the courts would not have the right not to apply it.

More and more initiatives involve international law. How do you deal with them?

Initiatives involving international law pose very complex problems, as they go beyond Swiss politics and we are in a learning phase. A fourth political level is becoming increasingly integrated. In the nineteenth^th In the 19th century, the cantons were very jealous of the national level. After that, the mechanics worked perfectly. Today, the same must happen at the fourth level. That said, one thing is certain: when Switzerland enters into treaties, it must respect them.

Let's turn now to the SVP's so-called «implementation initiative». The historian Philippe Bender said on RTS: «The sovereign cannot change the rule of law whenever and wherever he wants.» Do you agree with this statement?

Completely. This kind of initiative mixes up concepts and roles. The people are the legislators, they can make general laws. But any vote cannot replace the judgment of the courts. When it comes to individuals and respect for their fundamental rights, that's the job of the courts. I'll give you a striking theoretical example: if ninety-nine people vote to hang the hundredth, it's still lynching, even if the vote is perfectly democratic. The response of the rule of law is to say no, and only the courts can judge that.

Finally, have you ever personally supported popular initiatives?

It's a question I'm delighted to hear, because I've never heard it from a journalist before. As it happens, I've signed a few, but I've never endorsed any.

Write to the author: jonas.follonier@leregardlibre.com