Switzerland Federal Council bans large-scale events
admin.ch
admin.ch
It is very hard to understand how democracies work; it is important to keep an eye on how these things play out.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantons_of_Switzerland#Constit...
[1] https://www.bag.admin.ch/bag/en/home/krankheiten/ausbrueche-...
Essentially: The government is us.
What I'm trying to say is that I don't think it is possible to just take the Swiss model and transplant it elsewhere. It requires a multi-generational cultural conditioning to develop the civic mind that the Swiss have nurtured. It is also not clear how scalable it is ultimately.
It requires a certain amount of enlightenment without which the system would not work.
Not that it's universally adhered to by all proponents, but generally that's very much the understanding how the system should work.
As a for example: Switzerland has a "president". But that doesn't really matter since that changes annually and another member of the federal council gets to be president.
Except representative the "president" is not more powerful than any other member of the council.
One of the hall marks of the Swiss system is to push as much power as possible to as locally as possible.
Communities have a lot of power in their decision making as long as such decisions do not violate cantonal (state) or federal laws.
It demands, though, quite intense interaction with policies and referendums (there are usually about three referendums about various subjects on local, cantonal and federal level per year) and that said, I would wish that there would be more engagement and a higher ratio of voters actually going to the polls.
The smaller the group, the less hierarchy you need. I think that Switzerland is at the size limit of what direct democracy can support. In fact, it is not fully direct.
Wealth also helps. The richer you are, the more you can focus on your role in running the county and make informed decisions. That's because you have all your basic needs covered and don't really need to think about about your survival, leaving you open to higher level activities.
The classical example is Athenian democracy (the original). It worked because it involved only about 30000 people of the highest social class. Women and slaves didn't count.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_history_of_Switzerland
The old leagues and communes of Graubünden, which had some semblance of communal voting based democracy, was happening in the 1200's or earlier, long before Swiss wealth.
What it takes is a way different culture than the modern American mindset.
As a Swiss citizen, I think the feeling of individual power plays a minimal role. Unless you're some kind of political advocate you don't really wield any power and you do know that your single vote will almost never matter.
I think the big difference (and the real strength of a direct democracy) is the feeling you have that if a given system is in place, it is because a majority of the people - without discrimination - wanted it. Or, from the other side, that if a majority of people disliked it, they do have the power to change it.
It also requires ancient banking roots that enable it to sit on the largest 'pot of gold' in the world (1/3 of the entire world's foreign investment) and put the management surpluses into its treasury. And to add, much of that 'gold' was, and is, owned by some really, really bad people and stashed away in the mountains specifically because said keepers don't have qualms about the origins of said wealth.
Surplus money makes a lot of things a lot easier. (Much like the tone of a startup: flush with cash? It's all good times. Going out of business? Death marches!)
Switzerland for all its great things is a little like Lux, Norway, and Monaco, which is to say it's hard to separate their exceptionalism from their 'special status' of having huge piles of immense easy per capita wealth.
Also, to headline a post indicating 'national events shut down' which is an interesting but not particularly exceptional act, with the statement "We are the most X in the world, etc. etc." is slightly cringe-worthy. A lot of major events have been cancelled in a lot of places with similar risk exposures.
-has existed for much longer than Swiss banking being particularly significant
-existed already when Switzerland was one of the poorest countries in Europe
Also, banking is only significant in a small part of Switzerland.
It's really odd that someone would even bring that up.
Switzerland was the last country in the modern world to allow women to vote (1971) - and it was direct democracy that specifically blocked women from voting; a popular plebiscite in 1959 (obviously by men only) specifically prohibited women from enfranchisement. So much for popular progress? In Canada, women could vote in 1917. In Turkey, 1934. Finland, 1906. India, 1950.
The reason that Switzerland will be able to address the Coronavirus pandemic effectively will not be 'direct democracy', it will be wealth. Switzerland became wealthy largely due to a national economic strategy of banking secrecy, asset protection, and of course enabling evasion of taxation and other authorities. At almost 10% of the economy relative to assets under management, the banking sector in Switzerland is indeed substantially larger than other sectors relative to the sectors of other nations [1]. In the US it's 1%. Canada 2%.
Luxembourg, in the last 70-ish years, went from a backwater to even wealthier than Switzerland on a GDP/per-capita basis for similar reasons: it became a tax haven, a policy driven by no less than the outgoing EU Commission head JC Junker who was the PM of Lux. There is no real economy in Monaco, of course, but its high-income status is also derived from its special variation of tax haven. Even Irleand's massive economic renaissance in the last 20 years has largely been driven by asymmetrical tax benefits for large American tech corporations. And of course, Norway's sovereign wealth fund which owns 2% of all public stocks in the world is derived from another existential special economic bit: Oil.
When Corona hits, the 'rich' countries will be the safest (I think the US may possibly be an exception), and I think it will have little to do with their relative forms of government. Aside from their deep social ties to China, I think Singapore, for example, would be one of those ideal 'safe places'.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/267352/size-of-the-banki...
The thread you're commenting on so far has gone like this:
OP: "See a democracy can institute sweeping authoritarian-like bans, but with the will and blessing of the people"
Next: "I'm Swiss and it's because the government isn't our enemy, it is an extension of us"
You: "Nope it's because y'all are wealthy, that's the only reason y'all will survive!"
Grandparent: "uh dude the government system has been around longer than the wealth"
You: "I don't see why the government system matters, it's the money!"
The reason you're being downvoted is because you came into a conversation specifically about how the democracy of Switzerland is able to act quicky with a decree that could be viewed as an authoritarian-like policy, but with the implied general will (to use Rousseau's term for Sovereignty in political philosophy) of the people, and said "I don't see the effectiveness of this quick decisive action of democratic government, instead it's about the money they have!"
That comment chain went as follows (I am quoting only part of the comments):
1) "Switzerland, most democratic country in the world, reminding people that it isn't just the authoritarians who know how to keep organised."
2) "Well, as a Swiss I can only state for the record that the government is not the enemy. Essentially: The government is us. "
3) "It requires a multi-generational cultural conditioning to develop the civic mind that the Swiss have nurtured. It is also not clear how scalable it is ultimately."
4) your comment which was quoted the line above and discussed the role of Swiss wealth in being able to respond effective to a pandemic.
To me, your comment would have made more sense in reply to the first comment. The "It" from comment 3 that you responded to is the Swiss attitude towards the power of their government(s) and the placement of your comment might therefore lead people to think you meant that their wealth lead to that attitude rather than what you intended which was that their wealth would aid their ability to respond to an outbreak of disease.
On another note. While I do not think Swiss-style direct democracy gives a particular advantage in fighting pandemics (and has led to some not-great outcomes such as women in one canton not being able to vote until 1991), I do think that systems of government in which citizens have a high degree of trust are at an advantage. The Swiss do have a high regard for their system and they will do what they are told without resenting they system because they feel invested in it.
Swiss banks have indeed sat on funds where they could have been proactive in looking for heirs. They have traded and trade with companies and regimes that should be shunned. Switzerland is a tax haven and profits by taxing capital gains that could have been taxed where the work was done. Still there are many other factors that contribute to wealth. One thing is steady, low-corruption government and an investment mindset in public infrastructure. This coupled with a culture that fosters strong work ethics leads to accumulation of wealth. Another huge factor is no wars for centuries which is part luck, part ugly realpolitik.
So yes the Swiss system could not be implemented as-is by other countries. Yet looking at real-world implementations of certain policies can help illuminate how to get a wealthy population. And it doesn't have to be the tax thievery.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy#Switzerland
I'm sure you could create a political movement to make it by law easier to hang out your washing where you like.
Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom.
...which is entirely compatible with enforcement of high-pressure, in-group norms. Shunning is an authoritarian practice, even if it’s done by a collective. See also the Cultural Revolution in China.
Democracies where the people only have a voice every few years are regularly seen doing things against the will of the people, because the politicians know they can get away with it, because it’ll be forgotten by the time the next election comes around.
So a democratic country is just as authoritarian as "authoritarians"?
> It is very hard to understand how democracies work
It really isn't. It's been around for many millenia ostensibly going all the way back to the slave owning ancient greeks. And historically, democracies have proven to veer toward totalitarianism. Something even Plato recognized thousands of years ago. It's funny how we conveniently forget that even nazi germany rose from a democracy.
There is nothing inherently good about democracies. After all, democracies have exterminated continents full of people, democracies have practiced race-based slavery and the only form of government to have nuked civilians is a democracy. Hell democracies have attacked and destroyed more democracies around the world than authoritarians have. Instead of focusing on silly labels, why not focus on deeds/actions/results/etc.
Besides the fact that we naturally evolved toward them since everything else we tried so far was worse ? And the fact that people are fleeing authoritarian regimes risking their lives to get into democratic ones daily yet the opposite never happened ?
> After all, democracies have exterminated continents full of people, democracies have practiced race-based slavery and the only form of government to have nuked civilians is a democracy. Hell democracies have attacked and destroyed more democracies around the world than authoritarians have.
When you put lions in cages they're still lions.
> Instead of focusing on silly labels, why not focus on deeds/actions/results/etc.
Right, open an history book and it'll be painfully obvious that the vast majority of authoritarian regimes are worse than being "not inherently good".
> It's funny how we conveniently forget that even nazi germany rose from a democracy.
It's neither funny nor forgotten. It's also pretty clear germany and their neighbours weren't better off after being under dictatorship. It's almost as if desperate times lead to desperate measures... more than democracy leading to authoritarianism.
> the only form of government to have nuked civilians is a democracy.
The US is as far away as you can get from democracy and still call it a democracy.
Oh god, the silly "documentary" trope. Let me guess you heard that from a silly documentary with churchill? The same applies to democracies as well. We had them and they failed and we "naturally evolved" from them. It's almost like all forms of government are bad and have a shelf life. You do realize that the ancient greek democracy failed miserably right?
> And the fact that people are fleeing authoritarian regimes risking their lives to get into democratic ones daily yet the opposite never happened ?
No. People are fleeing poorer regions to wealthier regions. Most of the migrants around the world are from democracies not authoritarian regimes. Did you know that 1.3 billion people are without electricity? Do you also know that almost all of them are living in democracies? Did you know that almost all of the world's poorest countries are democracies?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/world-without-...
> When you put lions in cages they're still lions.
That excuses everybody, not just democracies. What bizarre rationalizations.
> Right, open an history book and it'll be painfully obvious that the vast majority of authoritarian regimes are worse than being "not inherently good".
Yes, open a history book and it'll be just as painfully obvious the same applies to democracies. Most of the human suffering around the world today are in democracies. Most of the wars started around the world today are by democracies.
> It's almost as if desperate times lead to desperate measures... more than democracy leading to authoritarianism.
So it's the desperate times and nothing inherent with the form of government. Okay, now you are starting to make some sense.
> The US is as far away as you can get from democracy and still call it a democracy.
Pretty much the definition of modern democracy. But you are right, we are a republic and that also is inherently flawed.
I used to think like you because I consumed the same documentaries and propaganda as you did. I agree with you that people should "open a history book" and look at what really happened. Most of the world's suffering in the past 200 years was caused by democracies sadly. It still applies today sadly.
You might have missed the reason why democracies are so popular; they win wars and they are capable of managing the complexities of capitalist systems. If you expect anything inherently good in politics you are in for a lifetime of disappointments because the entire game (in any political system) is deciding which group of undeserving people get to be in charge.
Cancelled are the Geneva Auto Show (600k+ guests), Basel Fasnacht (carnival), and many other popular events (concerts and sporting events) with more than 1000 people.
Remember when they banned Chinese exhibitors from Basel World[1] during the SARS crisis?
There was a hell of a lot of "Bloody Murder! That's such an over reaction!" going for that.
I was not so sure at that time. Ultimately (and mind you, it was a super painful decision and to describe the Chinese and Hong Kong delegation as royally pissed and offended would be a massive under-exaggeration) I figured that the BAG (health authority) was doomed whatever they decided. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
But since the situation could have ultimately run out of control I thought the decision was right.
I also think so in this case. Even though, it's hard core and will be very unpopular with a lot of the public (let alone 20 Minuten commenters).
[1] The most important watch and jewelry exhibition in the world, at least it was at the time. Hong Kong was the most important foreign exhibitor
I was looking forward to it, but I understand the decision. I can't really imagine a worse scenario than thousands of exhausted, coughing people in tight spaces for a virus like this. Also terrible for volunteers, which might get into close contact with hundreds or thousands of participants during the day.
Meanwhile, the largest cross country skiing event in the world, the Vasaloppet in Sweden, still looks like it's on this Sunday.
In the press conference was said, that currently, they are worried about large events, where people are very near to each other for quite some time. But large train stations, like in Zurich, Bern or Basel, are not yet affected.
Also border controls do not seem to be affected. There are many people crossing borders to Italy or Germany for work by car or train.
All in all, I think the swiss government reacts very reasonably. But I also think that containing the spread already seems out of the question.
(This was a joke)
Another cultural thing affecting virus is when it's not considered appropriate to stay home with cold or other diseases, rather you're expected to work, of course spreading virus to everyone else. I've heard about Japan, but probably there are plenty of other countries with similar approach.
[1] https://www.srf.ch/news/regional/basel-baselland/als-der-wel...
Obligatory commonplace: History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes!
This ain't true based on few web checks, for now they decided to go on (although I believe they will cancel eventually as cases ramp up in following days). I wanted to go like every year since its in my backyard and it takes 20 min bus ride, but not under these conditions.
Sources: [1][2]
[1] https://www.thelocal.ch/20200228/switzerland-bans-all-major-... [2] google etc.
The federal government announced all events with more than 1000 people involved cancelled till 15th of March. It just cannot go on.
It's already a mess of people from all over the world smashed in together. The city can't maintain it as is. It's already a sewer orgy of drunk/drugged people from all over the world trading regular diseases. I'm going to seriously limit my outside time while it's going on.
It's worth so much money to huge companies that don't even live here and is what the city is known for. I seriously doubt they'll cancel. They really should.
Google translate news from Poland: https://polskatimes.pl/nie-wykonano-testow-na-koronawirusa-u...
Central regional infectious diseases hospital didnt test a single person to this date! Government send 400 tests today, for the whole region ;-)
Maybe I'm missing something obvious and this is not possible, though.
There are so many people suspected of infection in just about every nation that there is simply not enough tests to go around to test people at random.
https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/seasonal-influenza/surveillanc...
This makes it sound like at least one German state has tested for coronavirus as part of their sentinel surveillance, but I’m not sure if that test was completely random:
Not quite random since they are only testing people with cold and flu symptoms but these are spread around the country in order to act as an early warning system for spread of the virus.
On the other hand, if we had a spit-and-mail test, this could turn into the biggest DNA harvest operation of all time.
> England's chief medical officer, Prof Chris Whitty, said transmission of the virus between people in the UK was "just a matter of time". He said if the outbreak intensifies, it may be necessary to close schools and stop mass gatherings of people for "quite a long period of time, probably more than two months".
The question is whether the rest of the world will have the governmental organization and social discipline to limit the spread the way that China has.
This is a good first step by Switzerland, but it should be adopted more widely.
https://www.newsd.admin.ch/newsd/message/attachments/60470.p...
Art. 2 Veranstaltungsverbot
1 Es ist verboten, öffentliche oder private Veranstaltungen bei der sich gleichzeitig mehr als 1000 Personen aufhalten, in der Schweiz durchzuführen.
2 Bei öffentlichen oder privaten Veranstaltungen, bei denen weniger als 1000 Perso- nen teilnehmen, müssen die Veranstalter zusammen mit der zuständigen kantonalen Behörde eine Risikoabwägung vornehmen, ob sie die Veranstaltung durchführen können oder nicht.
We do have a public party registered with the authorities for end of March. So if they extend the ban that may become a problem. But until then I hope we'll know whether the disease is reasonably contained. If not contained we probably don't want to be there anyway!
(I work as a Software Developer at SBB and work on the system that does the refund process)
If you have an infected person at a <1000 person event that can still result in a pretty large graph of potentially affected people.
I don’t think there is a magic number other than 1 where transmission is quashed, but I don’t see how this could have a blunting impact.
More effective might be temporarily barring all international travelers as extreme as that would be.
And it's not that smaller events automatically go forward, but that the cantons, where those events happen, together with the organizers need to perform a risk assessment and decide if the event can go forward.
> More effective might be barring all international travelers as extreme as that would be.
No it wouldn't for a variety of reasons. For starters, Switzerland is an extremely interconnected country and dependent on such connections. In addition It's part of the Schengen agreement and just shutting down all borders with its neighbors is legally, let alone logistically not feasible (and, IMO, not desirable).
Also, what do you do with citizens who have a legal right to return to the country at any time. Throw 'em all into quarantine camps?
I think that the governments reaction is heavy, but overall measured and reasonable.
But sure, as a Swiss citizen flying home from Bangkok tomorrow you may accuse me of being biased.
For people en-route, yes quarantine upon arrival would be the right thing to do, in the least self quarantine at home with proper precautions.
But I don't think that the situation calls for a full throttled shut everything down, oj! wie is mir, panic.
Since I travelled to Asia 3 1/2 weeks ago I was quite concerned and very abreast with valid information. So I mostly referred to the one reasonable source[1].
In no instance have they suggested any bans on travel or trade. And frankly, I put more stock into the opinion of the WHO than, say, Mike Pence'.
In addition I'm travelling from a country were the risk of infection is lower than if I travelled from neighboring Italy.
That's not to say that I'm blasé about the issue. If I would feel any slight symtoms I'd immediately contact my doc, relay my travel history and do whatever is required. Legally and morally.
Full throttle panic in the line of The end is nigh, shut down all borders! is, if anything, extremely counter productive.
They stated the closing borders would cause a shortage of doctors and staff which commute over the border every day.
Later, your chance of actually contracting coronavirus during the flight goes up. Your chance of contracting it in Madrid depends on the prevalence of the disease there relative to Krakow, and on the density of your social contacts in Madrid relative to Krakow. Generally, it would be easier to self-isolate at home, while tourism involves a lot of contacts.
you have the additional risks of airports, or buses during travel. there is also the risk of being flagged down for testing. if you're positive then a forced quarantine in a foreign country sounds much worse than at home (where you speak the language). to me this would be more annoying and frightening than the virus itself.
on the upside you can probably get really good deals and empty restaurants / bars and other sites usually crowded with people. if I wouldn't live so close with family and kids (which I'd be returning to - AND be 20 years younger), I'd go.
You could just move, you know? Or at least plan vacation when the carnival happens so it doesn’t have to bother you.
1000s of people need to get to and from the train-station, to go to their jobs and the city makes almost no extra arrangements.