The USA is considered the oldest democracy in the world, with Switzerland not far behind. Research suggests that democracies do strengthen over time. But developments in America show that age alone is no guarantee of stability.
A country is only as good as its institutions.
The year 2024 is a very special one for the world’s democracies. It’s a great election year. After voting in India and various EU countries, the presidential election is coming up in the USA – the oldest of modern democracies. But anyone who is concerned about stability and quality of life should not rely on the age of a democracy. The question of whether a country has matured is much more important.
Talking about maturation and aging in the context of a country seems intuitive at first glance. But is it legitimate? Some may still remember the provocation by the artist Ben Vautier. In 1992 he proclaimed at the World Exhibition in Seville: “La Suisse n’existe pas.” Can such an imaginary structure even age or mature?
Institutions determine prosperity
“La Suisse n’existe pas.” This sentence still resonates today – and it is misleading. Of course, liberals in particular are inherently cautious when it comes to collective identities like “the nation.” For them, the focus is always on the free and self-responsible person. What defines Switzerland is the 9 million people in the country. But upon closer inspection it becomes clear: Switzerland exists. Our society is more than the sum of 9 million individuals, and this is because of functioning institutions.
It is institutions that ultimately determine whether a country ages or matures. This idea is also at the center of this year Nobel Prize in Economics. “Why nations fail.” This is the title of a book by Daron Acemoğlu and James A. Robinson. These are the two economists who, together with Simon Johnson, received the coveted prize from the Swedish Central Bank almost three weeks ago. Why do nations fail? The answer lies in the institutions, according to the Nobel Prize winners.
In a liberal spirit, Acemoğlu and Robinson distinguish between two types of institutions: Inclusive institutions ensure that all individuals and all companies can develop optimally. Extractive institutions, on the other hand, serve the well-being of small groups – at the expense of the general population. Anyone who now deals with Switzerland will quickly realize that this excellent research is also relevant for our country.
Special interests dominate in pension provision
For example, the federal government and cantons have Debt brakes introduced. This can ensure that current generations do not live at the expense of future generations – these are inclusive institutions. Certain existing institutions have also matured and become more inclusive over the years. An example of this is the dual education system. With the introduction of technical colleges, this was further developed to better meet the complexity of today’s working world. At the same time, permeability between the different qualifications was promoted, which increased educational mobility.
However, such a maturation process has not occurred at other Swiss institutions, such as the Retirement planning. This year in particular has shown this again: the 13th AHV pension did not take the sustainability of this social welfare scheme into account, nor were any reforms undertaken in the occupational pension scheme. In this context one can at least partially speak of extractive institutions. A lack of intergenerational equity ultimately means that one age group is systematically advantaged over younger cohorts.
The USA is a chilling example
It’s not just in Switzerland that certain political actors are becoming more and more brazen in promoting their particular interests. That’s a problem. It is important to clearly counter the tendency to make institutions increasingly extractive. Once the feeling spreads that selected groups are being systematically advantaged, it gradually erodes the political culture – interestingly enough, it is precisely this interplay between culture and institutions that is at the center of the latest Research the Nobel Prize winners Acemoğlu and Robinson.
Anyone who has followed the election campaign in the USA over the past few weeks should be aware that this is not just a gray theory. Switzerland is not immune to the developments observed there. Inclusive institutions must always be defended. Otherwise the state will soon no longer be an organizing force in the background. Rather, depending on the political perspective, it is seen only as an accomplice to one’s own interests or as an instrument of enrichment for other groups – a country then no longer matures, but begins to age.
Jürg Müller is director of the think tank Avenir Suisse.
An article from the «»
