LOS ANGELES – Nearly 100 years ago, California Progressives, in their search for a way to beat political machines, seized upon Switzerland's system of direct democracy and added the initiative, the referendum and the recall to the state constitution.
Today the Swiss, despite having three major national languages and the highest percentage of foreign-born citizens in Europe, still see direct democracy as a pillar of their consensus-based politics and remarkably stable government. But many Californians have come to view direct democracy as a major culprit in turning the most diverse state in the union into a dysfunctional, ungovernable mess.
Why does the same system produce such varied results? Yes, there are cultural and demographic differences between Switzerland and California. But the two places also have structured their systems of direct democracy in different ways. An examination of that difference suggests a new path to reforming the state's politics.
California's direct democracy is dominated by the initiative – the tool that permits citizens to propose and enact laws directly, without any review or consultation by the Legislature. The initiative was attractive to Progressives such as Gov. Hiram Johnson, who led the campaign to adopt direct democracy in 1911, because they believed the Legislature was fundamentally corrupt. They saw direct democracy not as a check on lawmakers but as a way to fight the existing system. Johnson, who openly admired the Jacobins who terrorized France during the Revolution, liked to say that the initiative was a "gun in a man's hand."
Under initiative-based direct democracy, California politics has become a shooting range that never closes. Dozens of initiatives are filed each year (the record is 152 in 2005). Since Johnson's time, more than 105 initiatives have been approved by voters. In contrast, the referendum – a ballot measure that allows citizens to reverse an act of the Legislature – is rare. According to the Secretary of State's Office, only 64 referenda have even been filed in California since 1911.
Why the disparity? The state constitution makes initiatives easier to qualify for the ballot than referenda (the number of signatures required is the same, but sponsors get more time to gather signatures for an initiative) and just as easy to pass at the ballot. A simple majority is all that's needed.
Swiss direct democracy works in the opposite way. It's based not on the initiative but on the referendum. The Swiss constitution makes initiatives twice as hard to qualify as a referendum. A referendum needs only a simple majority of votes to pass, but an initiative must achieve a "double majority" to succeed – a majority of the national vote, and majorities in a majority of the country's 26 cantons, or provinces. Initiatives are thus much less common than referenda because they so often fail – the success rate of Swiss initiatives is just 9 percent. (In California this decade, a historically difficult time for passing initiatives, voters have approved 30 percent of initiatives).
This referendum-based system promotes consensus. Major legislation often goes to the people multiple times before the public approves. (Women's suffrage, consumer protection legislation, value-added taxes and excise taxes all came to pass this way). Lawmakers and the public are thus partners, kicking ideas back and forth. The handful of initiatives that make the ballot are usually offered simply to make a point. The referenda are the real action, giving voters the chance to approve legislative compromise or ask lawmakers to try again.
"A referendum is a conversation," a Swiss election official explained when I observed the country's referendum elections in 2005. "An initiative is a scream."
In his book "Direct Democracy in Switzerland," the conservative writer Gregory Fossedal argues that the Swiss system "creates a spiritual bond, and a sense of responsibility by the people – turning them all, in effect, into part-time legislators." In California, where Fossedal lived for several years, direct democracy relies on the initiative and becomes "more of an extension of politics as usual than a reliable process for making the voice of the people felt." Or to put it another way, California initiatives are too indirect – they provide us not with direct engagement with our state government but with a way to circumvent that government.
