Input legitimacy: the Swiss approach

The Economist writes:

One of the great arguments for democracy is what Fritz Schapf, a German scholar of politics, calls “input legitimacy”. Even if a system does not give people what they want, the fact that those running it reflect a democratic choice is legitimising. Can technology plan economies and destroy democracy?, the 'Economist', 18 December 2019

 This chimes with some decades-old research done in Switzerland. It is a shame that the Swiss model of ‘direct democracy’ is something of an outlier. Switzerland has a federal structure whose 26 cantons have use assorted instruments of direct democracy, notably initiatives to change the canton’s constitution, and referendums to stop new laws, change existing ones, or prevent new public spending. Cantons vary in the ease with which these instruments can be used. Research by Bruno Frey and Alois Stutzer of the University of Zurich showed that, even after allowing for other variables, the more democratic the canton, the more people living there reported being happy. The effect is significant:

 [T]he marginal effect of direct democracy on happiness [was found to be] nearly half as big as the effect of moving from the lowest monthly income band (SFr980-1,285, or $660-865) to the highest (SFr4,501 and above). Happiness is a warm vote, the 'Economist', 15 April 1999

By looking at the reported happiness of foreigners (that is, people who cannot vote in the referendums) living in the Swiss cantons, the researchers found that it wasn’t just the effect of the decisions made by direct democracy that led to greater well-being. The participation in the process itself accounted for most of the increased happiness.

This is a position I have long advocated. Social Policy Bonds would target outcomes: transparent, verifiable outcomes that are meaningful to ordinary people. Discussion and debate about these outcomes and their priority is inherently more accessible to ordinary people. The current political systems in most democracies rarely declares their goals (if they have any) in terms that mean anything to natural persons. Their goals have more to do with retaining power, and usually mean favourable treatment for the most powerful, especially government agencies and big business, at the expense of small businesses and ordinary citizens. The system gets away with this, because its goals are expressed vaguely if at all, and policymaking takes the form of recondite, legalistic discussion about institutional structures and funding. Social Policy Bonds in contrast would subordinate all such processes to meaningful, explicit goals. This would draw more people into the political process. As the long-standing research into Swiss direct democracy shows, this is an end in itself, as well as a means to greater well-being.