How old is your political system?

[lucy]

First of all, why is it important how old a political system is? Does that say anything about its quality? Would like to hear what you think about that.

Then: Switzerland
Basically it was a rather loose federation of so called "Stände" (now known as Cantons, i.e. what Americans call states). There were two different kinds of states, independent ones and those governed by the former. In 1815 this was changed by Napoleon to the first Helvetic republic. I think the idea behind it was to make sure that Switzerland remains a neutral place and not mess with the big ones in Europe (there were indeed some people who thought that Switzerland should do that, mess with the big european powers).
In 1848 the current constitution and governmental institutions were put into force, preceded by a civil war were liberal forces beat conservatives (read cities against the countryside or reformists against catholics).
The constitution was written with the American constitution as a basis (hence my question why it's important how old a system is. Because i think the blokes who wrote the Swiss constitution have learned from the Americans and made some points a little bit better. Just my humble opinion, tho.)
Since then nothing has changed, except for one state being created out of a part of an already existing one. And i think the guys did a great job back in 1848, because since then Switzerland has been one of the most stable countries, stayed out of both world wars and has transformed itself from a country of poor peasants who often were forced to emigrate out of sheer hunger to becoming one of the richest countries in the world.

[Ragoczy]

First of all, why is it important how old a political system is? Does that say anything about its quality? Would like to hear what you think about that.

Okay, so the context of the question. It's not discussion about good or bad. This question typically arises in the context of discussions about how long the US has left to reasonably expect our system to last before it goes completely ass-over-tea-kettle and/or what systems, if any, have shown that they're long-lived enough that we should maybe look at borrowing from them.

In other words: Where are there some good ideas that are already well-proven over time? or: Shit, we're about to collapse under our own weight, so let's pack it in -- hey, what about trying ...?

It typically comes up when our disgust with the current direction we seem to be heading winds up with us musing about what would happen if we actually were able to scrap things and call a new Constitutional Convention.

As to why it's important in general, well, I'd say that the longer-lived a system is without significant upheaval speaks to its stability, which is an element of quality. For instance, say there's an hereditary dictatorship out there that's lasted four hundred years -- pretty stable, which some people like, but with cons that I wouldn't trade for that stability. We look at current systems, rather than historical, because our discussions focus on what works/doesn't-work in modern times.

[Ragoczy]

The constitution was written with the American constitution as a basis (hence my question why it's important how old a system is. Because i think the blokes who wrote the Swiss constitution have learned from the Americans and made some points a little bit better. Just my humble opinion, tho.)

What aspects do you think were improvements? Were there any new things tried that you think were mistakes?

[lucy]

What aspects do you think were improvements? Were there any new things tried that you think were mistakes?

I knew that would get me into some kind of predicament, lol. But i give it a try.

Like i already posted in another thread (http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=18112) what i like about Switzerlands constitution are the great many ways to participate directly, via initiatives or referendums. Sure, it makes the political process somewhat slow, sometimes even too slow. But it also keeps it balanced, extreme opinions or issues are very unlikely to survive for a long period or on a large scale.
Another good thing is that the constitution abandons the idea of a presidential system. We do not have one president, but seven "Bundesräte" (think of them as ministers), one of which is elected to be Switzerlands representative president for a one year term.
There is an ongoing discussion whether 7 ministers are enough or whether the workload is too much (for example, the minister of interior has to deal with the health system, the educational system, pensionary system, and some more). I think there should be a couple more. But of course that would mean to share power, not an easy thing for someone who has accumulated power.
Those ministers are elected not by the people directly, but by the members of the parlament. An initiative to the effect that the ministers should be elected directly by the people was voted down not long ago. I think the reason was that people saw how ugly electoral campaigns can get and wanted to avoid that (no offense meant, but America comes easily to my mind right now)

For over 60 years the ministers' jobs were given to the parties according to the same formula: 2 liberals, 2 catholic conservatives, 2 social democrats and 1 right wing *****. Since the right wing ***** have grown in the past years, they have now 2 seats, the catholics only 1.
That was quite a little revolution for our standards

This system, called concordance, makes sure that the legislative process needs to enclose as many opinions as possible, so usually in a new law nobody feels really mistreated. However, things are shifting a bit, the political discussion has grown somewhat harsher.

I think the fact that Switzerlands cantons (states) are in many ways very independent is something the fathers (there were none or very few women involved, so "fathers" fits perfectly) of our constitution took very likely directly from the American one.

But then, they also made a huge mistake when they wrote the preamble which starts: "Im Namen Gottes des Allmächtigen...." which translates to "In the name of God Almighty..."
As an atheist i don't believe such stuff. As an ignostic all i can say is: Got proof of that? Really? And why should it matter?
And as a human with the ability to reason and being emotional (sometimes those two can even coexist): If there is a god and he cares about the constitution of a fly shit-sized country like Switzerland he has set his priorities dead wrong.

To sum it up: God has nothing to do with our constitution and should therefore be left out completely.