Small: The New Big

One of the strongest arguments against direct democracy is that it may work in a small country like Switzerland but could never work in a large country with tens or hundreds of millions of people.

But this misunderstands the lesson of Switzerland.

The important point is not simply that Switzerland is a small country. It is that Switzerland is organised into manageable units. Power is distributed between the Confederation, the cantons and the communes, bringing many decisions closer to the people affected by them.

The same principle can be applied to much larger countries.

A country does not have to become smaller to become more manageable. It can be divided into smaller democratic units.

The Problem Is Not Size. It Is Scale.

A large population does not automatically require a large, centralised government.

The real problem arises when decisions affecting millions of people are routinely made by institutions that are physically and politically distant from the communities they govern.

A road in a particular town does not need to be managed from the national capital. A local planning decision does not require national government to determine the answer. Services that affect a particular community can often be designed and managed more effectively by people who understand that community.

The principle is simple:

Decisions should be made at the lowest level capable of making them effectively.

This is the practical meaning of subsidiarity.

A large country can therefore operate as a collection of smaller democratic communities, each with significant responsibility for its own affairs, while the national government concentrates on matters that genuinely require national coordination.

Think Swiss, Not Small

Switzerland provides a useful model because it combines different levels of government.

At the local level, communes deal with matters closest to citizens. Above them, the cantons retain substantial powers and responsibilities. The Confederation deals with matters that genuinely require national coordination.

This creates layers of government rather than one enormous central administration.

The principle could be adapted to a large country.

A large nation might be divided into regions, provinces, states or other locally appropriate units. These units could have meaningful responsibility for taxation, public services, infrastructure, planning, education, policing and other matters that can be managed locally.

The national government would remain responsible for matters such as national defence, foreign affairs, currency, major national infrastructure and other functions where a single national approach is necessary.

The objective would not be to weaken the country.

It would be to make the country manageable by bringing government closer to the people.

Make Government Smaller by Moving It Closer

This approach also changes the role of central government.

Instead of attempting to administer every aspect of life from the centre, national government becomes responsible for fewer but more important functions.

Local and regional governments gain greater responsibility—and with it greater accountability.

Citizens would know who is responsible for what.

If a local road is falling apart, citizens should know which authority is responsible. If a local service is failing, they should know who has the power to fix it. If taxes are too high or public money is being poorly spent, citizens should be able to identify the government responsible.

This creates something that large centralised systems often struggle to provide:

a direct connection between responsibility and accountability.

Small Enough to Know, Large Enough to Matter

The advantage of breaking a large country into smaller units is that citizens can once again feel connected to the institutions governing them.

A local representative is more accessible than a distant national politician. Local meetings become practical rather than symbolic. Citizens can understand the issues affecting their own community and have a greater opportunity to influence them.

The government becomes easier to see, understand and challenge.

This can also encourage a stronger sense of community. People are more likely to feel that they have a shared interest in the success of the place where they live.

But this does not mean abandoning the larger nation.

There are enormous advantages to being part of a large country: a larger economy, greater resources, national infrastructure, a common currency and the ability to act collectively on matters that cannot be dealt with locally.

The answer is therefore not small versus large.

It is large country, small government units.

Direct Democracy Becomes Practical

Breaking a large country into manageable units also makes direct democracy much more practical.

Citizens do not need to vote on every issue affecting an entire nation.

Many decisions can be made locally.

A local referendum can deal with a local issue. A regional vote can deal with a regional issue. A national referendum can be reserved for matters that genuinely affect the whole country.

This creates a democratic pyramid.

At the bottom are the decisions closest to citizens.

Above them are decisions requiring regional coordination.

At the top are the relatively small number of issues that genuinely require national decisions.

The result is that citizens can participate without being overwhelmed by the scale of the country.

The Advantages of Being Small Can Be Recreated

Many of the qualities associated with successful smaller countries are not necessarily the result of population size alone.

Smaller countries can benefit from stronger social connections, greater accessibility of political leaders, more responsive government, simpler administration and a greater sense that citizens are part of the decision-making process. The original argument is that these qualities can, to some extent, be reproduced within a larger country by bringing government closer to citizens.

The same principle applies to public services.

A local authority that understands the particular needs of its population may be better placed to organise services than a distant national department attempting to apply one solution to millions of people.

This does not mean that every local authority will perform better.

It means that citizens have a better opportunity to see what is happening, compare their community with others and hold those responsible to account.

And that introduces another powerful feature:

competition.

If one region manages its schools, transport, healthcare or administration better than another, citizens can see the difference. Successful approaches can be copied. Poorly performing authorities can be challenged.

Government itself becomes capable of learning from government.

Beware Enlargement for Its Own Sake

There is an important warning here.

There is often a tendency to respond to administrative problems by creating something even larger: merging authorities, combining regions or transferring more responsibility to the centre.

The argument is usually that larger organisations will be more efficient.

But size can also create distance.

When regions with different histories, cultures, economies and priorities are merged into larger administrative structures, citizens may feel less represented and less connected to the institutions making decisions about their lives. The source text highlights this concern, particularly the risk that enlargement can create greater distance between citizens and decision-makers.

Bigger is not automatically better.

Sometimes smaller is more efficient because it is more understandable, more accountable and more responsive.

A Different Way to Think About a Large Country

The question should therefore not be:

“How can we govern millions of people from the centre?”

It should be:

“How can we organise millions of people into manageable democratic communities?”

That is a very different proposition.

A large country can retain its national identity, economic strength and international influence while distributing political power downwards.

The country remains large.

The government does not have to be.

The Swiss Lesson

This is perhaps one of the most important lessons Switzerland offers.

Its success cannot simply be explained by saying, “Switzerland is small.”

The more useful question is:

“How has Switzerland made government manageable?”

The answer lies partly in the distribution of power.

The country is divided into cantons and communes, each with responsibilities of their own. Citizens therefore encounter government at a scale they can understand and influence, while remaining part of a larger national system.

That principle can be adapted almost anywhere.

A country of five million people can do it.

A country of fifty million can do it.

A country of several hundred million can do it.

The units simply become smaller within the larger whole.

Small Is the New Big

The future of democracy may therefore not require us to make large countries smaller.

It may require us to make large countries more manageable.

The answer is to distribute power rather than concentrate it, to make decisions at the lowest practical level and to give communities meaningful responsibility for their own affairs.

The result is a country that can be large in scale while remaining small enough for its citizens to understand and influence.

Small is therefore not the opposite of big.

Small can be the way big works.