“We haven’t yet found the perfect form of democracy”

Francis Cheneval observes that participatory decision-making is also found among the Iroquois and Tembu peoples. | Photo: Christian Grund

Francis Cheneval, during the WEF in early 2026, a protest sign was illuminated on the mountain behind Davos declaring ‘No kings’. Was this a pro-democracy statement?

Not really. I don’t view kings or queens as polar opposites of democracy – at least not as long as a country has a parliament and elections for it, as is the case with the constitutional monarchies of Europe. It was really about Donald Trump, who purportedly behaves like an absolute monarch. In fact, his office is endowed with far more power than that of any constitutional monarchy.

According to the Swiss Historical Dictionary, our democracy has its roots in alpine communities in the late Middle Ages. Surely there’s a connection here?

In the USA and Switzerland, democratic ambitions were linked to an endeavour to achieve independence from kings and foreign governors respectively. In Switzerland, democracy is rooted in local self-government. In the USA, too, people sought to draw on existing traditions. For example, the Iroquois practised participatory decision-making and federalism.

In Western Europe, democracy is the benchmark against which we constantly measure all other forms of government. But isn’t this arrogance on our part?

It would be arrogant to assume that having a say in political processes and participatory decision-making are values that are appreciated only in our part of the world. In his autobiography, for example, Nelson Mandela described decision-making among the Tembu people of South Africa. He wrote: “It was democracy in its purest form. People spoke without interruption and the meetings lasted for many hours”. Democracy wasn’t invented in Athens; only the name we give to it. But we can certainly ask just how far it ought to go.

What do you mean by that?

I’m sure that not even convinced democrats would agree to put their choice of spouse to a people’s vote. Our private sphere is not for democratic decision-making. But in many areas, we do have a strong feeling that it’s better if everyone has a say.

Why is that?

Let’s do a little thought experiment. Imagine you go hiking every Saturday with the same members of a club. Your chairman always decides where you’re going to go. And everyone thinks their decision is brilliant every time. The alternative would be for the group to make a democratic decision each week about where you should all go hiking. Sometimes you might disagree completely with the joint decision. So which system would you prefer? How valuable is it for you to have a say in the decision, regardless of the outcome?

Can you give us an actual example from politics?

Democratically governed countries come out on top in the UN’s annual development report in matters of access to education, low infant mortality and average income. So democracy is a valuable tool whose outcomes have proven to be the best over a longer period of time, at least in relation to these criteria. But what if another form of government were to prove better at them? We could be talking about an enlightened dictatorship or an artificial intelligence. We would have to prefer them if our sole concern is achieving results. But we’d have to reject them if we consider participatory decision-making to be a valuable end in itself.

Is fair decision-making ever possible outside of a democracy?

If you define fairness as the right of everyone to participate, then probably not. But if you define fairness once more in terms of sheer outcomes, then it’s possible that there are certain circumstances under which enlightened despots might act fairer than a vote taken by the people. That said, ‘enlightened despotism’ is a very theoretical concept. A person or group of people governing independently who possess greater knowledge and power would sooner or later abuse that power. Accountability is a core element of good governance. It’s a useful instrument, and in itself it’s valuable as an expression of respect.

So what alternatives are there?

I don’t think that we’ve found the perfect form of democracy yet. That’s why I find innovative forms particularly exciting. One such example is decentralised consensus in the digital world. There are ‘Decentralised Autonomous Organisations’, DAOs for short, within which a consensus mechanism is determined by an algorithm. They make decisions regarding the code, the process of consensus and the management of financial resources such as investments or donations. Crypto-communities such as Ethereum and Bitcoin operate like this. Blockchain technology is in general based on this idea. But if you take a closer look at how much voting power rests with which token holders, you find that things are sometimes not as decentralised as they might seem.

Could a system like that ever be applied to a whole country?

Maybe – if everyone really did have equal access to these technologies. Otherwise, we’d end up with a digital divide. That was already the problem with e-voting. But digitalisation harbours immense potential for democracy. In Switzerland, we like to think that we’ve reached the pinnacle of democracy with our direct referenda, but I don’t believe that. Have you heard of the theory of liquid democracy?

No. What’s that?

The idea behind it is this: you have a particular area for which parliament isn’t responsible any more, nor do you have any referenda. Instead, everyone of us has a vote for every decision to be made. You can either use your vote yourself or delegate it to someone else – and you can also take it back again from whoever you’ve given it to. This system can also lead to a concentration of power where you then lose control. Nevertheless, it’s exciting to contemplate. I don’t expect us to reinvent democracy. But one way or another, we’re going to supplement it at some point.

What definition of democracy makes sense to you today?

It’s a participation-centred, decision-making process in which everyone can play a significant role in deliberation and decision-making. That’s a very general definition – the kind that, say, could define a democratic rabbit breeders’ association just as well as a democratic nation state. If I consider the word ‘democracy’ in terms of its etymology, it requires a ‘demos’, a populace. But it’s not entirely clear who or what this populace is, or who belongs to it. There is no single institution that represents it in its entirety.

You talk about ‘the populace’. Switzerland is usually described as having been a liberal democracy since 1848, but women had no role in it until 1971.

That’s right. If you’re going to be able to participate in debate and decision-making, you have to be able to understand and articulate the reasons for it. The blanket exclusion of women was accordingly unfounded. Of course, Switzerland had democratic procedures and the separation of powers back then – in other words, it already possessed the institutional instruments that are part and parcel of a democracy. But the definition of the ‘demos’ was far too exclusive and was clearly discriminatory. The year 1848 was more the starting point of a democracy-in-progress.

So how did women become integrated in the long run?

The Swiss constitution enshrines ideals, or at least implies them, that must ultimately lead to the system being reformed in line with them. Jürgen Habermas referred to this as a ‘normative surplus’. It wasn’t until 1971 that Switzerland recognised what it actually means if everyone is to have a voice in decision-making. The same applied to the US Constitution. It was adopted at a time when slavery still existed. But if you apply its fundamental principles consistently, you have to abolish both slavery and segregation.

Many people talk about us suffering a crisis in democracy today. But is the current situation also an opportunity to rethink democracy itself?

Democracies have always been in flux. I’m optimistic. For example, the fact that new parties are emerging is actually a sign that democracies are working. These new parties mustn’t be allowed to abolish the institutions that would enable the people to vote them out of office again. But there are plenty of places where we’re not that far yet. Even if some people keep trying. In my opinion, it’s technological developments that offer us both the biggest opportunities and the greatest dangers. In the long term, they’re potentially far more important than individual people or parties.