It would require some modifications I guess. Switzerland has a relatively long history of direct democracy and citizen participation in politics, and for this reason people do not fall prey so easily to misinformation like they would in other countries where referendums are held that do not have people prepared for it (see Colombia, the UK, Chile, or even California).
The key to direct democracy is citizen engagement and in Switzerland the government actually does a lot to support informing citizens about what they're about to vote.
I think for other nations it might be better to look into citizens assemblies as a next step in empowering democracies because citizens assemblies are very good at achieving public policy that aligns with the general population but in an environment where it's much easier to control for misinformation. In Ireland these were used in conjunction with direct democracy (referendums) as part of the process, in that, the assembly explored the question that would be asked in the referendum and gave a sort of "official opinion" on it. This was then widely distributed as part of the information campaign that the government did for the referendum. Polling suggests that a large part of the population that voted on the referendum was aware of the resolution made by the assembly, which is a good sign. And yeah, ultimately, the results of the referendum aligned with the assembly. The issue was abortion and it was voted in favor, consider that Ireland is a very religious country so it was quite a contentious issue.
I didn't say smarter, I don't think they're smarter. They're better informed and have a more responsible culture regarding politics which takes the form of informed participation.
In fact, I believe this is precisely because people are given a much more direct way of influencing decisions in the country which starts at the very local and scales up. What you say, that you have a system that keeps misinformation in check, yeah, that's part of it.
It's not about individuals being better or worse, groups of people everywhere in the world I would say are pretty much just as smart. It's about the system, but you can't just take a system and drop it on a society that's not used to that; it needs to be phased in and adapted.
I guess, in fewer words, it's not that the swiss (individual person) are smarter but socially (swiss group of people) are. Because there's a culture and systems in place that allow for better group-making decision. It's the difference between having a disorganized group of people just shouting and a group where people take turns to speak; the individuals in the first are not less smart than the second but the second has a system that allows for better decisions to be made.
I generally agree with you. I believe it is all about the culture and by extension the systems which have evolved over time to govern the political process.
I took objection however with "people do not fall prey so easily to misinformation like they would in other countries [...]". People as individuals are as prone to believe anything they read or hear as they are in any reasonably developed and educated country.
The key difference to me seems to be that the political system offers fewer incentives for political actors to act destructively. Proportional representation and multi-member districts mean nobody can assume they will win a majority alone, and a strong pull towards consensus (multi-party governments) means no party will ever govern alone. Everywhere, including in Switzerland, any political party will use information for a certain benefit or advantage, and "misinformation" is just the derogative term for that process, usually from the vantage point of the political opponent. However, there is less to gain from it when you need other parties to find an acceptable compromise and bring forward your objectives.
The key to direct democracy is citizen engagement and in Switzerland the government actually does a lot to support informing citizens about what they're about to vote.
I think for other nations it might be better to look into citizens assemblies as a next step in empowering democracies because citizens assemblies are very good at achieving public policy that aligns with the general population but in an environment where it's much easier to control for misinformation. In Ireland these were used in conjunction with direct democracy (referendums) as part of the process, in that, the assembly explored the question that would be asked in the referendum and gave a sort of "official opinion" on it. This was then widely distributed as part of the information campaign that the government did for the referendum. Polling suggests that a large part of the population that voted on the referendum was aware of the resolution made by the assembly, which is a good sign. And yeah, ultimately, the results of the referendum aligned with the assembly. The issue was abortion and it was voted in favor, consider that Ireland is a very religious country so it was quite a contentious issue.