Paid signature-gathering has the disadvantage of favoring those with the most resources. However, banning this practice would have even worse consequences, further distancing Swiss-style direct democracy from its original spirit.
The affair caused quite a stir this week. According to the Tamedia Group newspapers, forgeries in the signatures submitted to the Federal Chancellery for certain popular initiatives were organized on a large scale by commercial agencies. Understandably, many have called for the rules to be changed. But there is no perfect solution. And some of the alternatives proposed to improve the current system would even make things worse.
Such is the case with the proposal put forward by the left, in particular, to ban paid harvests. In fact, this false good idea would have the effect of favoring political parties and trade unions which, because of their human and financial resources, are already over-represented in the voting process. These organizations could continue to send their troops out on the street to collect signatures during working hours. However, referendums and popular votes were introduced precisely for citizens, not for political structures. Granting them a de facto quasi-monopoly would therefore be a further departure from the original spirit of these tools of popular democracy.
Reducing democracy
On a more general note, tightening controls - by whatever means - would be tantamount to restricting opportunities for the people to express their views on issues. But the whole point of direct democracy is that there is no such thing as a bad issue. It's always a good thing for the people to have their say on a voting Sunday. This is preceded by several weeks or months of public discussion, the quality of which everyone can judge and contribute to. In the final analysis, it is always the Sovereign who expresses his soul and conscience on a specific text. The debate of ideas takes precedence over the methods of initiators or referendums. And that's a good thing.
In this instance, it is gratifying that proceedings have been opened by the Swiss Federal Prosecutor's Office. This will enable us to get to the bottom of the matter, which will have an impact on the reputation of the alleged culprits. Voters have not accepted ballots in which cheating on signatures has been reported. This shows that the current system can work, that the media have an important role to play in a democratic society, and that the Federal Council needs to be more proactive in its communications. The misdeeds in question, however, if confirmed, are already punishable under the Criminal Code. No need for additional regulation!
Number of signatures in question
As for digitizing the system, beware of seeing this as a panacea. It would simply shift the problem to a less physical level. The risks of piracy are not to be overlooked. La Poste, commissioned by the Swiss Confederation, has so far failed to come up with a satisfactory digital voting system. We can talk all we like about an independent cenacle of specialized private companies ensuring the operation and security of a dematerialized signature collection system, but such a hypothesis would necessarily mean increased surveillance of our private data.
What's more, obtaining signatures digitally is easier than on the street. This raises the problem of the number of signatures required. When the popular initiative was introduced into the Federal Constitution in 1891, the number of signatures required for an initiative to be put to the vote was set at 50,000 (i.e. almost 8% of all voters at the time). When women's right to vote was introduced in 1978, this threshold was doubled to 100,000. This number, still in force today, reflects the reality of the nineteenth century.th century, while the electorate has quadrupled in the meantime. This debate, already present in the country, will become even more pressing with the digital collection of signatures. If the number of signatures required is not increased, the legitimacy of the ballot will be undermined in the eyes of some citizens. And if the number is increased, direct democracy will be reduced, as an individual's voice will be worth less than it is today. So beware of false good ideas. Sometimes it's better to use existing levers to the full, rather than create new ones.
Write to the author: jonas.follonier@leregardlibre.com
French 
German 
English