Collegiate Executives and Direct Democracy in Switzerland and Uruguay: Similar Institutions, Opposite Political Goals, Distinct Results

Abstract

Uruguay, defining itself as the “Switzerland of Latin America”, took the Swiss model (collegial executives and direct democracy) as an example when building its own political institutions. Despite the similarities of these institutions, the results were quite different due to the different context. The comparison between the institutions in these two isolated countries highlights the ways in which the same institutions may produce different results and evolve in distinctive ways. This is important to recognize as foreign models and experiences continue to inspire policies. Contrary to common arguments presented in the literature, even in such a “most likely case”, institutions cannot simply be copied. Institutional effects are context‐dependent and we need to pay attention to this interaction. This article provides new evidence showing that universalist institutional arguments can be misleading.

Stumbling block or stepping stone? The influence of direct democracy on individual participation in parliamentary elections

“…With regard to direct democracy, much scholarly attention has recently been devoted to the educative effect of popular rights (Smith and Tolbert, 2004). In this vein, salient ballot propositions and the use of direct democratic processes are associated with increases in voters' political information, knowledge, and interest (Altman, 2002(Altman, , 2008Benz and Stutzer, 2004;Lassen, 2005;Mendelsohn and Cutler, 2000;Smith, 2002;Smith and Tolbert, 2004;Tolbert et aI., 2003;Tolbert and Bowen, 2008;Wagschal, 1997) as well as with higher levels of political efficacy or confidence in government responsiveness (Bowler and Donovan, 2002;Hero and Tolbert, 2004;Mendelsohn and Cutler, 2000).…”

“…However, the Swiss cantons present a suitable alternative. These 26 subnational units provide an excellent opportunity to test the impact of direct democracy -one of Switzerland's unique institutional arrangements (Altman, 2008;Kriesi, 2005). While some cantons witness extensive use of direct democratic rights, reflecting a participatory political culture, others are much more strongly oriented toward a pure representative democracy (Freitag, 2006;Linder, 2005: 272;Vatter, 2002).…”

Referendums Around the World

“…Actually, the connection between Switzerland and Uruguay goes beyond their relative marginal size and population, as one (Uruguay) was strongly influenced by the other (Switzerland). This is particularly so in terms of institutional architecture, the collegial executives and direct democracy (Altman 2008).…”

Endogenous Direct Democracy: The Case of Mexico

“…In Uruguay, DD was introduced to achieve a particular government structure. Research on the Uruguayan experience suggests that mechanisms of DD became bargaining chips among political elites to counter a greater concentration of executive power, not as demands from disenfranchised groups in society to gain broader political inclusion (Altman, 2002(Altman, , 2008(Altman, , 2011.…”

“…Regarding the first, the adoption of DD in Uruguay dates back to the first two decades of the 1900s, when several members of the Uruguayan political elite, including José Batlle y Ordóñez (president, 1903–1907 and 1911–1915), were influenced by political ideas emanating from continental Europe, particularly France and Switzerland (Altman, 2008; Hudson, 1992; Lissidini et al, 2008). Uruguay pursued the Swiss DD model, Altman maintains, due to Batlle’s deep normative convictions but also due to “notorious short-term partisan and political interests toward advancing with direct democracy” (Altman, 2011: 143).…”