The Democratic Distance Problem

Why the EU Feels Undemocratic Compared to Switzerland

Democracy is not just about voting. It is about proximity—how close decisions are made to the people who live with their consequences. By that measure, the European Union suffers from a structural problem that no treaty reform has truly solved: democratic distance.

When compared to a system like Switzerland’s direct democracy, the EU does not merely feel less democratic—it is less democratic in how power is exercised, accountability is enforced, and citizens influence outcomes.

This is not an argument against cooperation between states. It is an argument against centralised governance that regulates governments rather than empowering citizens.

Switzerland: Democracy Pushed Downwards

Switzerland operates on a principle that is almost inverted from the EU’s logic: decisions should be made at the lowest possible level.

• Taxes are largely set at the communal and cantonal level
• Education, healthcare structures, policing, and infrastructure are primarily local or regional
• Federal authority is limited and explicitly defined
• Citizens can challenge laws through referendums, often multiple times per year
• Constitutional changes require double majorities (people and cantons

Swiss citizens are not merely voters; they are co-legislators. The political system assumes that people are capable of deciding on complex matters—and designs processes to support that assumption.

The result is a democracy that is sometimes slower, occasionally messy, but deeply legitimate. Even unpopular outcomes are widely accepted because people recognize them as their own decisions.

The European Union: Power Pulled Upwards

The EU operates on the opposite assumption: that governance must be harmonized at scale, and that efficiency requires centralization.

In theory, the EU is democratic:

• Citizens elect the European Parliament
• Member states appoint the European Commission
• National governments participate in the Council of the EU

In practice, however, real power is concentrated in institutions that are structurally distant from voters.

The European Commission—arguably the most powerful body—has:

• The sole right to initiate legislation
• No direct electoral mandate
• Weak mechanisms for removal
• A technocratic culture largely insulated from popular pressure

Citizens do not vote for Commissioners. They cannot recall them. They cannot directly veto EU laws. The Parliament, while elected, cannot propose legislation on its own—a fundamental limitation in any democratic system.

This creates a paradox: the EU has democratic elements, but no democratic core.

Governing Governments, Not People

One of the EU’s most undemocratic features is that it primarily regulates governments, not citizens.

• Fiscal rules constrain national budgets
• Regulatory frameworks override national parliaments
• Courts can invalidate domestic legislation
• Monetary policy is centralized without fiscal sovereignty

Decisions affecting millions of people are often negotiated between:

• National executives
• EU institutions
• Lobbyists and expert committees

Citizens encounter these decisions as faits accomplis, implemented through domestic law with little room for reversal.

Contrast this with Switzerland, where:

• Citizens can overturn parliamentary decisions
• Federal power is limited by cantonal autonomy
• International treaties are frequently subject to referendums
• Loss of sovereignty requires explicit popular consent

In the EU, sovereignty often erodes by accumulation, not by choice.

A common argument is that the EU’s democratic deficit could be solved by “more Europe”: a stronger Parliament, deeper integration, a federal system.

This misunderstands the problem.

Democracy does not scale linearly. Beyond a certain size, participation becomes symbolic. Voters feel disconnected. Turnout drops. Trust erodes.

European Parliament elections already show this:

• Lower turnout than national elections
• Voting driven by domestic protest, not EU policy
• Weak identification with EU-level representatives

Switzerland avoids this trap by keeping meaningful decisions local, while coordinating federally only where necessary.

The EU does the opposite: it centralizes first, then tries to retrofit democratic legitimacy later.

Other Examples: Centralisation vs Legitimacy

Consider a few concrete areas:

Taxation

• Switzerland: municipalities compete on tax rates; citizens vote on changes
• EU: increasing pressure for tax harmonisation decided at supranational level

Migration

• Switzerland: negotiated bilaterally, frequently subject to referendums
• EU: binding quotas and rules often imposed despite national opposition

Currency

• Switzerland: retains monetary sovereignty
• Eurozone states: gave up currency control without full fiscal union or democratic oversight

Crisis Management

• Swiss responses are debated locally and federally
• EU crises (financial, pandemic, energy) are handled through emergency mechanisms with limited parliamentary scrutiny

In each case, the EU prioritizes uniformity over consent.

Democracy Is Not Just Values—It’s Structure

The EU often frames itself as a defender of democratic values. But democracy is not primarily a value—it is a system design problem.

Systems that:

• Centralize authority
• Rely on technocratic legitimacy
• Limit direct participation
• Blur accountability

…will feel undemocratic regardless of intent.

Switzerland’s system works not because Swiss citizens are uniquely virtuous, but because the architecture of power forces proximity, restraint, and accountability.

A Choice, Not an Accident

The EU’s democratic deficit is not an accident. It is the result of deliberate choices made to:

• Prevent fragmentation
• Enable rapid coordination
• Reduce national veto power

These goals may be understandable. But they come at a cost.

The cost is legitimacy.

Switzerland shows that another path exists: one where democracy is not something managed from above, but something practiced continuously from below.

The question for Europe is not whether it needs more democracy in principle—but whether it is willing to redesign power so that democracy becomes real again.

#Politics