Swiss Vote upon "Gold" Standard

Just another example of how “wise” the “common man” can be, showed itself in Switzerland on Nov. 30. After a widespread petition garnered enough signatures to require a referendum, the Swiss people  voted upon the most amazing subject. They voted yes or no upon whether to place the Swiss economy back upon the “gold standard”. The specific point was to raise their gold reserves to 20% of central bank assets from the current 7%. Switzerland had utilized gold as a major backer of their currency right up until 1999. Then, (as virtually all other nations of the world had so done several decades prior) they changed their system to become more reliant upon the Euro as a major backer of their currency. They did not adopt the Euro, keeping their Swiss Franc, but they abandoned gold as their main money-value backer. 

         This story was recently fully reported upon by USA’s Forbes Magazine, by the National Post, and by other international media. 

         Many people in Switzerland were apparently quite upset at their currency increasing in great value against the value of the Euro. Their exports were assisted by this, but their own currency became very expensive, allegedly cutting down tourism and making imports very expensive; or at least that is what some held was the reason for their economic troubles.  

         And so they had a vote upon it. The vote was led, not by an individual, but by the efforts of one of the smaller political parties, The Swiss People’s Party.  Despite such interesting people as former American presidential candidate, Ron Paul, supporting their position, the vote was much against the idea, with 78 % voting in opposition.  Prior to the vote, Paul had said, “The Swiss people appreciate the work their forefathers put into building up large gold reserves, a respected currency, and a strong, independent banking system. They do not want to see centuries of struggle squandered by a central bank.”

         However, most financial experts of Switzerland were against placing the economy back on the gold standard, declaring they still had more gold in reserve than most other countries.  These experts were also of the opinion that not being within the gold standard was not the cause of any economic troubles the Swiss may have had.

         But the reasons behind the vote are not, to this writer, what is so interesting. It is the whole exercise. It is the permitting the “lowly citizen” to vote upon such a complex issue. The fact that the vast majority went along with most of the financial experts says a lot about “common-sense”. The people can be counted upon to vote with sense. We in Canada (or Ontario, or within our municipalities) have “wise” common people. Why cannot we vote when we want to, upon issues, via referendums? Would not our commitment to democracy improve if we had more say on some matters? Would not the apparent need for disruptive protests be reduced? Think about it.

          

Many Recent USA Referendums

             Did you know that in the US at their recent October elections, voters in several states were also asked to approve or not  146 ballot initiatives? That was according to the Initiative and Referendum Institute of the University of South California, as reported in the recent Economist magazine.

         Voters in Colorado and Oregon were asked whether labels were required on foods with genetically modified ingredients. California was asked about reducing prison sentences for some non-violent crimes. Two more states voted on whether to legalize marijuana. Washington wanted to know whether there should be background checks for all gun sales. Life begins at conception was an issue in Colorado. Minimum wage questions were asked in three states.

          Some 35 of the initiatives were introduced by citizens themselves, via citizen petitions. The others were introduced by the legislatures.

         Of course, citizen initiatives are harder to muster because they do require a lot of work to get enough voters, usually 10%, to sign them. But that they do pursue the opinions of the citizens in these formal manners is surely the right thing to do in a democracy -where the principle is that the majority is supposed to rule, while the minority has the right to be heard. 

         Just why is it that only in B.C. and in the NWT can you do this in Canada, though sanctions there within each riding regarding the required petition numbers make success very difficult. Is Canada that much slower to utilize modern means for obtaining democratic decisions? Is that why we are not bothering to vote in large numbers? Most citizens have given up, knowing that their vote does not make any difference in the laws that are passed. 

         Why can we not have binding, citizen-initiated referendums in our province or even in our municipality? Get after your members. Ask them. Tell them to introduce the rules that permit such, as so many US states have done. 

Kingston Casino Referendum

       Now there was a referendum recently in Kingston, Ontario, that any municipality could well pursue. The community considered whether or not to allow a casino within its midst. At the recent municipal election was a clear and simple question for the voters:  Are you in favour of a casino being located in the city of Kingston? Yes. No.

         Despite very strong views and media efforts by the casino champions, of the 46% of the citizens who voted, 71% rejected the idea.

         According to the news article on Oct. 30, in the daily newspaper in North Bay, Ontario, this issue had been considered pro and con by the council for more than two years. Other cities, such as Brantford, were cited as places where a casino was apparently successful. Economic benefits were emphasized. The social problems of gambling, however, were argued in opposition. 

         And so, despite the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. favouring Kingston as a site, the citizens had their say. The mayor of Kingston apparently deemed the casino issue now “dead”.

         Is not that the way it ought to be, in a democracy? The majority opinion should stand, with the right of the minority to be heard. Why do we not encourage more binding referendums upon consequential issues within this province? Especially with the vast improvement in communications, and potentially  the ease of voting from home, via computers, should this  idea be pursued more.  Then citizens might feel truly involved in their community’s well-being.  And wouldn’t that be a good thing?

          

Right to vote upon Issues, as in Scotland - a sure platform to power seekers?

          The Scots have had their say; 85% of eligible voters voted!  Upon a simple referendum, with a yes or no answer. They even allowed 16 year olds to vote.

         Is not that an  example of Direct Democracy (voting on issues) at its highest level? And despite many misgivings that the majority would not understand the issues, especially after all sorts of exciting manners of expression, and  outstandingly expressive speakers, (even from the  leading politicians), the “common sense” of the majority  prevailed. Not just prevailed – but by a whopping 55-45 decision.

         Does not this illustrate in the strongest way the value of letting the common people vote upon issues? They were not fooled. They were not dissuaded by fiery rhetoric; nor by lots of money spent by interested parties. They were not intimidated – by wild demonstrations. They had lots of time to think about it all, – or be otherwise persuaded; and they exercised their democratic right to vote in favour – or not. The minority had a full right to be heard, but the majority must prevail, as it did,  – the true meaning of democracy – the power of the people.

         When will we in Canada, or in Ontario,  even in our municipalities, be given rights to petition for a proper, binding, democratic say in an important issue?  Why are we so inclined to let our elected representatives be our only example of  our vaunted democracy? They  must follow the tune of their leader, who in turn follows whatever his henchmen say is the way to permit the party he represents to stay in power. If the leader seems to falter, due to an apparent slipping of consents by his party followers, the media will crucify him – and the party falls in support accordingly. How can we realistically support any representative, under this system? 

         The vote in Scotland shows that people can be trusted to vote appropriately, upon difficult issues, when they have a chance to do so. Other communities in the world also follow that modern manner of democracy.  Why not ask your political spokesman to support direct democracy principles?   Just maybe he will champion it in higher places. It is a sure election platform winner.

Scotland's Referendum - is that process not prideful?

So many references to “initiatives’ (followed by binding referendums) in recent news articles. When will we, in democratic Canada, finally note such in our media?

          Just why is it that many of us hesitate to endorse citizen-initiated referendums upon issues, when we don’t see the dilemmas caused by  our encouragement of those same people voting for   representatives? For, what can be so complex as the character of a person, with his party allegiances, unfulfilling promises, and his unknown to us, back-room influences? And so,  just why do not we see the conflicts about encouraging voting upon such  as Toronto’s mayor – Ford, for example?  Yet, we hesitate to encourage those same  people voting upon relatively simple to explain issues, in this day of easy communication?

         Recently in the international magazine, The Economist, there was a lengthy review of  the upcoming referendum about Scottish independence. It intimated within the article, some embarrassment abroad about   Britain, in the possible outcome. A letter to the editor in a subsequent issue of the magazine from a resident of California, (where   referendums have been common-place since the early 1900’s,) tried to reassure them. To quote him – “whatever the outcome, the parties’ use of a peaceful referendum to settle a complicated political question should be seen as a source of pride”.

         Such a clear point of view. So much better – than, for example, in eastern Ukraine, where there is obvious differing views among very many residents, between staying within the country, and either federating, or separating;  – and where we have a neighbouring power, Russia, intervening, with potential world-wide conflict.

         When will we recognize the ability of our citizens,  so long as proper safeguards are included, to vote upon significant issues? Yes, leadership is very important; but as is so clear, the power that sometimes is manifested through leadership, can be easily provoked into terrible consequences. Politicians just cannot be expected to know the right answers to everything. We, the people should prefer to provide our own binding conclusions to whatever issues we decide are worth our intercession.  Don’t you agree that that is the essence of democracy, - “directly” influencing the decisions? - as in Scotland.

        

         

Corporations Requiring Shareholder Approval of Exec. Remunerations.

This article describes the detail to which citizens (in this case Swiss) can individually control or affect the operations of important institutions within their country – if the country has effective rules within which issues may be determined by referendum votes. You get the gist of it by referring to the extensive, 2014 “report of the Board of Directors on the Revision of the Articles of Association”  - of a very large, international, corporation – Nestle`s; (the chocolate etc. company).

         On March 3, 2013, the citizens of Switzerland approved an initiative of one citizen who had been dismayed by the compensation of which he had become aware  being given, to some   directors, of some Swiss companies.; this, despite some less than admirable financial results of such companies.   As a minor shareholder in such companies he had thought this was wrong -  as it was!

          And so, he determined to overcome that. After many months, drafting and re-drafting proposals, he had managed to get ten percent of the citizens to sign a petition requesting a vote on the subject. And the citizens ultimately approved what is now called – “article 95, para 3, of the Swiss Federal Constitution”. And following that the Swiss Federal Council (sort of the Swiss “executive” – a 7 person board), enacted the details required to put the law into operating effect. This was as of Jan. 1, 2014.

         It required that all Swiss corporations have a form of Compensation Committee, to, among other things, approve the compensation of the top directors and executive of  that corporation.  Nestle’s by-laws had to be extensively amended (with expected,   approval of the shareholders). That will  ensure that such bonuses – or even loans to such officers, will be within effective and proper control – by this separately elected compensation committee; and that such committee is to have a one-year term only – to ensure that its independence is actual, and not demeaned in any way. It can even determine performance criteria, around which such compensation would relate. There are many details within the new   proposed  bylaws  to ensure that it will all actually work.

         Such a good idea – as complex as its development must require! And this initiated by a single citizen!

         It just illustrates how a country can permit involvement of its citizenry in important issues, which otherwise might well not become enacted due to inertia, or lack of sufficient favour by the ruling elite.

         Would that we could empower our citizens in such fashion! But – then again, why not? All it needs is for a sufficient number of us to push a favourite party leader toward that direction. It is called “Direct Democracy”. When are we, in Ontario,  going to uphold our alleged rights as citizens within a democracy – to vote upon issues? Why don’t you be one of them to start the movement

Referendums or Rebellions?

         Revolts in Brazil, over the huge World Cup expenditures, have been in the news.  Considering the huge amounts spent, the uprisings are understandable, aren’t they? 

         Would it not have been better to have had a referendum about the issues?

         They did that in Kracow Poland, recently about a proposal to have the Olympic games held there. Apparently the citizens there voted against the idea – due to the   huge costs anticipated.

         That surely is  the right way to handle such issues, would not all of us who support the principle of democracy, agree? 

         Just why are not more referendums utilized throughout those parts of the world that are not autocratically led? It could be that they are not as democratic as they pretend to be.  Leaders of whatever persuasion seem to believe they have the power and right to do whatever they deem best for the people. And, they do not wish to be second-guessed by the very people they lead. 

         But, areas which have advanced their democratic processes to include the rights to initiatives and thence referendums, do seem to get along very successfully. That includes Switzerland, not just the country , but the cantons and municipalities. There, on March 3, 2013   the people voted not to increase a minimum wage. Citizens in a democracy must be trusted to understand what is best. That is what democracy is all  about.

         Almost half of the United States have frequent referendums  - which do not seem to upset the successful running of those states.

          Could we not expand the trust and understanding of more citizens if we permitted them to have votes on issues? Such vote would of course have to be binding upon the government. Apparently referendums in Italy are often just ignored by their legislators; and the Supreme Court would have to understand their role as interpreters of laws . Although it is extremely difficult to fulfill the strict conditions set out in British Columbia’s referendum laws, the courts there have interpreted at least one such effort with proper sympathy. Will more be forthcoming soon?

         Modern democracy seems to demand it, if we are to be governed by more than protests and rebellions.