strong vs weak
What would it take for there to be further collegial national councils? What is the trigger that causes such an event : the establishment of another directorial executive, based on the Swiss example or just the French theory?
Where are those scientists who know better than the mainstream that classifies collegial governments as weak and presidential ones as strong? Indeed, i think we should motivate them to search for further evidence based on the Swiss experience that shows a collegial executive has its advantages.
Surely the individual councilors are weak, because they can't just decide over the majority of a cabinet meeting like a strong president, but a councilor has to persuade three of the other six members of the federal council. Yet that barely makes a directorial government powerless no matter the situation, i say, as once there is a compromise on the table, the whole executive can stand behind the deal and give it full constitutional support. Such the government can act strongly and absolutely decisively.
Not being an accredited historian nor journalist, i pretend, the Helvetic government has always been able to come up with a minimum compromise, a sustainable road forward, more than less. Judging by the peace in the streets and amounts of millionaires, i feel tempted to say the overwhelming majority of the decisions taken have been inline with the realities needed, surely in comparison with the other 15o plus presidential or prime-ministerial decision making offices or tables taking political decisions also for the peace and wealth, culture and happiness in their streets, all while being subject to the same environment or world, submitted to the same UN or WTO rules.
The French 'Directoire' can't be seen as weak as it was expanding powers all over Europe. Sure it can be seen as weak because a determined man - respectively Napoleon - could abolish it again, but i think that's more a lack of culture of the parliamentarians permitting it, of which the majority used to royal rule and probably not persuaded of the theory of the shared rule : directoriality being in the end of the 18th beginning of the 19th century still rather a theoretical concept. Maybe still is, surely in the heads of the many strong presidents not feeling like reading my call, nor rebel leaders to-be-future presidents.
What i think gives the Swiss directorial council the impression of being weak, is rather the federalism of my home country, than the actual division into the seven of the government's executive. Many decisions want to need the majority of the cantons or take at least into account their minimum requirements or demands.
But let me clear : divide to rule indeed, but federalism and directoriality are not the same recipe ; don't have the same effect on the health of the democracy, on the parliamentary power trading. Unlike a minister chosen by a president, an individual councilor has more than less always the option to sabotage a decision of a council; an abuse of state authority or assets. Through the constitutional fact of being an elected councilor, by the majority of parliament, and not being just a chosen minister of a president. A weakness for great but riskful thinking, so to speak, a threat for the egomaniac politician, that the decision making of the central administration can't get carried away in a delusion born in the subculture of a big city, who's charismatic leader would make it through elections and parliamentarian gerrymandering and filibustering : a populist can make it into the council despite being a psychotic liar, but he or she won't make it on top of the military, and justice, and economy, and the whole nation in short.
In theory, in practice anything possible, many times the helvetic government has been corrupted but never was it possible to sustainably corrupt the state in Switzerland. Always the profiting parties had to give in part of their share of benefits or give up their corrupt behavior altogether. The might needed to maintain a lie constantly in society over generations is just not given with an executive not comprised of a manipulable strong president, which - simply put - a ring of mafias can exchange at gusto. Rather the seven equal councilors need to produce honest results, or look really dumb, which, elected wise as are - or so the people coerces them into - just never want to end up as.
The risk we take, the fun we have, void of king nor queen, void of president strong and mighty. The lie we don't indulge in, that the president's arms could surround us with warmth and protection for real, as if ... The pressure we live under respectively the freedom we have. Because the question stays, what you value more : stability as you can observe it emerge under helvetic-like collegial rule that necesites the citizens to have the discipline to stick to this form of political decision making involving the need to build compromises and have the patience to come to such agreements. Or do you want possible absolutist or totalitarian freedom under the rule of a likeminded president with the goal to entrench that rule for as long as possible - respectively win it in the first place for there to be happiness and justice forever thereafter?
I think latter involves always a form of domination of the others, who aren't likeminded but have also legitimate reasons to be represented with a president. ( not a reminder ). The domination leads to fear of revenge at the prospect of the oppressed to succeed to replace the own president or party in power. What starts as an innocent game, political game, professional game, usually or often or generally - depending on your "goodwill" - turns over time into serious threats and extortion, defamation and harassment to worse - depending on your "culture" -, undermining the won freedoms with the increased instability due to a professionally undermined morality, that is the positive odds for the average citizen trying to live and build an honest and honorable life are just not given anymore - nobody playing after the rules of the constitution and the churches but rather his or her or their own faith, in good faith.
You don't have to be human, just from the third world, to agree that vices are amply available and distortionnaly appreciated to make it can always happen, a political party feeling rationally superior. Bound with the monopolar fantasy of the winner taking-it-all-mentality, regularly delusions ( false ideas ) make it from subculture to national level and law before the people of the nation agreed to it lest was ready to absorb the political decision and social fact created thereby : opposition is futile respectively part of the game called city-life ; the governmental abuse introduced into society. Under the nose of any judge. All while in the meantime the parliamentarians have learned to appreciate to agree to the good of a decision together with the president : a center of power up for sale as any mafia-ring wants.
How much freedom do you need, i ask again : do you want rather to live in a stable society with politicians close to the people, that gives you sufficient to be able to be healthy and happy and build modestly on your life and dreams, as i pretend we can in Switzerland, respecting nature and the environment? Or do you want the possibility to cash in big in a free society where there is nothing else to try than cash in big; to live the life of a one-of-a-kind, with the disproportionate high risk of not succeeding and living thereafter under the existential minimum just like the millions of others, needy to give in to the next violent mafia to be subdued for the rest of your life, regretting you to not have been humble and modest and accepted there is something else than trying to cash in big : the tyranny of being abused from time to time but chronically by the stronger, surely you never make it sustainably and in decent manner into or staying in the middle class, because isn't that life under a strong president?
For real, that is with eight billion people around of which half not even as educated they could understand ( grasp ) my written words - or so i'm told - and a conservative taken tenth of the population who is since always - or surely in the meantime - fatally traumatized by war, violence and abuse. And not as in theory with the pre-imagination, that we have done it already; that is by the law educated and cared for children and people and a by the law efficient market able to serve all needs at best price and service independently, of the fact that we're - as mentioned - eight billion humans of which many millions in need of several billion dollars in aid each year, and not as pre-imagined, one wonders, eight million, which would be a lot already for our small planet. Without speaking in that sense also of or bystanding with the advocates of animals or the animal and plant kingdom, which for happiness you have to add or doom humanity into three hundred years of depression until new funny animal clips come out again, to speak of the tip of the iceberg.
My causa belli : no panic, just drama, political, economic, social and spiritual drama, on television, in theatre, for real, in between, in the streets, at home and at work, but surely, mostly, never, well, no, not lethal, just a pain that life. And with seven councilors around, there is always one you can count on. Such - through collegial trust and almost like magic - wealth gets distributed not inline with the disproportionate power allocation inside a presidential nation, but rationally aligned with the federal and collegial approach, smoothing freedom and responsibilities out evenly amongst the population.
Because :
what's the difference between stability and social order ?
Assuming
all equal and contra sunt servanda
.
...
17-may-2o19 to 17-april-2o22
