6 ms·

...or it could be a recipe for civil war if those trained and armed people split into different factions. I don't see that happening in Switzerland, but that's

by rob74 4y ago

...or it could be a recipe for civil war if those trained and armed people split into different factions. I don't see that happening in Switzerland, but that's probably one of the reasons why this model hasn't caught on a lot.

mantas 4y ago
If people do split into factions, they have to settle somehow. Of course, hopefully peacefully. Forcing society to stay coherent against it's will sounds a we... authoritarian?
kkfx 4y ago
Swiss is actually deeply split: German-speaking think they are the best, they have to rule, their Calvinist vision is the best etc, French-speaking populations they are the best, their social and democratic model is far superior to the raw and sore German-speaking Calvinist one, Italian-speaking populations think they are the best, a bridge between French and German groups, French-speaking ones are just hippie with too much power and richness, German-speaking are unable to enjoy life etc, Ladin/Romance populations think they are the sole real Swiss and the others oppress them just because they are numerically superior etc BUT they know being unite is needed and they choose carefully to distribute power around groups to make hard one being able to rule others or some unite against others and they choose a language no-one use (Latin) as a good symbol of "we are unite, but we are all different and together"... IMVHO this model is not accepted by most countries is because anyone like or dream power and in this model there is no absolute power by anyone so any decision need to be discussed and lobby can't do that much. Oh, it's not perfect, we see recent schizophrenic referendums rows, sure Swiss is not poor anymore, the poorest mercenaries of big European powers of the past, so they can count on being a safe harbor for anyone else etc. BUT try to compare Swiss to Lebanon (the ex-Middle-est Swiss almost anybody forgot)...
- dotancohen 4y ago
  As you described Switzerland I immediately thought of Lebanon. Lebanon has the added complication of extraordinary interest of its two neighbors in Lebanon's internal affairs. In your opinion, could that be the difference between the successful Swiss implementation and the largely failing Lebanese implementation?
  - IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago
    Very easy: One is founded on libertarian ideals. The other one is founded on state-mandated pluricultural sectarianism. In switzerland, plurality is represented via multiple presidents and they can represent any canton. In lebanon, plurality is state-mandated: must have a president that is of X religion. A prime minister of Y religion. This is "representative". The swiss has very strong traditions on union out of necessity (to face external threat). Lebanon has no tradition of unity, it is a state unified effectively out of fear (and a bastard child of french palestinian mandate). The swiss culture of unity is long: they worked 800+ years to establish their union and it was carefully balanced over many iterations of conflict, even internal ones. Lebanese culture of unity is very weak. They basically were friendly with all neighbors seeking to influence internal policy. For example, all public works depend on a sponsor (saudi, qatar etc), to fund the project. Money buys influence. Imagine if FL depended on Venezuelan treasure to build roads. Very weak internal unity. Lebanon was only the switzerland of the middle east because it was the most free of countries in the region. But the regional bar is very low. As it turns out, that only gets you so far. And time ran out for lebanon... a while back: When? I think Black september sealed the fate of lebanon. They had no internal unity to reject the palestinian refugees like Jordan did (via authoritarian methods). That permanently and irrevocably set them on the path they are today. In summary, calling lebanon the switzerland of the middle east is a romantic idea for the lebanese that lived thru a somewhat prosperous but short time period of 15 or so years. Nothing suggested it could be long lasting. It was always an empty vessel. A student that cheats on every exam, will eventually get caught. The rest as they say, is history
    - dotancohen 4y ago
      > They basically were friendly with all neighbors seeking to influence > internal policy. For example, all public works depend on a > sponsor (saudi, qatar etc), to fund the project. I had no idea! Was this because they were unable to collect taxes from the populace? Where could I read more. > When? I think Black september sealed the fate of lebanon. They had no internal > unity to reject the palestinian refugees like Jordan did (via authoritarian methods). Was there no way to handle the palestinian refugees without authoritarian methods? Honest naive question, most people who voice an opinion on the subject seem to have extremely one-sided and narrow viewpoints, your comment demonstrates otherwise. I would appreciate a candid opinion from someone who sees the larger picture.
- occamrazor 4y ago
  Nitpick: Calvin was mostly active in Geneva, in the French speaking part. The most important exponent of the Reformation in Zurich was Zwingli. And the (German speaking) cantons in Central Switzerland that “founded” Switzerland are to this day mostly Catholic.
dotancohen 4y ago
This is what happened in south Syria. Before the Libyan mercenaries arrived, the real civil war started when citizens armed by the government revolted to a heavy-handed government crackdown against schoolchildren. Those citizens were armed with heavy weaponry by the Syrian ministry of defense, in case of Israeli attack. Then the displaced farmers revolted (this is why the war is sometimes blamed on climate change), then the Libyans came, then ISIS and Russia and the whole mess we see today.
- tut-urut-utut 4y ago
  How convenient to "forget" "western" factors and blame everyone else instead.
  - dotancohen 4y ago
    From the way I saw it the Western factors came later, mostly in response to Russian and ISIS involvement, and thus fall into the category of "the whole mess we see today". Though I do see your point, many people like to cherry-pick parts of conflicts that serve their worldview and ignore other parts, so it may appear to you that was what I did as well. Both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict love to discuss certain events and limit the discussion to only those periods during which their favoured side was "right". So that was in fact not my intention. You are invited and welcome to mention the Western factors that you see relevant.
    - boomboomsubban 4y ago
      The Wikileaks diplomatic cables releases showed the US had been funding the opposition groups in Syria for years. Then, shortly after the war began CIA operation Timber Sycamore began supplying the opposition faction with weapons, supplies and training. Also, official US intervention happened before official Russian intervention. While I won't deny the Russian or ISIS involvement, the US was also always involved.
      - dotancohen 4y ago

by rob74 4y ago

mantas 4y ago

If people do split into factions, they have to settle somehow. Of course, hopefully peacefully. Forcing society to stay coherent against it's will sounds a we... authoritarian?

kkfx 4y ago

Swiss is actually deeply split: German-speaking think they are the best, they have to rule, their Calvinist vision is the best etc, French-speaking populations they are the best, their social and democratic model is far superior to the raw and sore German-speaking Calvinist one, Italian-speaking populations think they are the best, a bridge between French and German groups, French-speaking ones are just hippie with too much power and richness, German-speaking are unable to enjoy life etc, Ladin/Romance populations think they are the sole real Swiss and the others oppress them just because they are numerically superior etc BUT they know being unite is needed and they choose carefully to distribute power around groups to make hard one being able to rule others or some unite against others and they choose a language no-one use (Latin) as a good symbol of "we are unite, but we are all different and together"... IMVHO this model is not accepted by most countries is because anyone like or dream power and in this model there is no absolute power by anyone so any decision need to be discussed and lobby can't do that much. Oh, it's not perfect, we see recent schizophrenic referendums rows, sure Swiss is not poor anymore, the poorest mercenaries of big European powers of the past, so they can count on being a safe harbor for anyone else etc. BUT try to compare Swiss to Lebanon (the ex-Middle-est Swiss almost anybody forgot)...

dotancohen 4y ago
As you described Switzerland I immediately thought of Lebanon. Lebanon has the added complication of extraordinary interest of its two neighbors in Lebanon's internal affairs. In your opinion, could that be the difference between the successful Swiss implementation and the largely failing Lebanese implementation?
- IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago
  Very easy: One is founded on libertarian ideals. The other one is founded on state-mandated pluricultural sectarianism. In switzerland, plurality is represented via multiple presidents and they can represent any canton. In lebanon, plurality is state-mandated: must have a president that is of X religion. A prime minister of Y religion. This is "representative". The swiss has very strong traditions on union out of necessity (to face external threat). Lebanon has no tradition of unity, it is a state unified effectively out of fear (and a bastard child of french palestinian mandate). The swiss culture of unity is long: they worked 800+ years to establish their union and it was carefully balanced over many iterations of conflict, even internal ones. Lebanese culture of unity is very weak. They basically were friendly with all neighbors seeking to influence internal policy. For example, all public works depend on a sponsor (saudi, qatar etc), to fund the project. Money buys influence. Imagine if FL depended on Venezuelan treasure to build roads. Very weak internal unity. Lebanon was only the switzerland of the middle east because it was the most free of countries in the region. But the regional bar is very low. As it turns out, that only gets you so far. And time ran out for lebanon... a while back: When? I think Black september sealed the fate of lebanon. They had no internal unity to reject the palestinian refugees like Jordan did (via authoritarian methods). That permanently and irrevocably set them on the path they are today. In summary, calling lebanon the switzerland of the middle east is a romantic idea for the lebanese that lived thru a somewhat prosperous but short time period of 15 or so years. Nothing suggested it could be long lasting. It was always an empty vessel. A student that cheats on every exam, will eventually get caught. The rest as they say, is history
  - dotancohen 4y ago
    > They basically were friendly with all neighbors seeking to influence > internal policy. For example, all public works depend on a > sponsor (saudi, qatar etc), to fund the project. I had no idea! Was this because they were unable to collect taxes from the populace? Where could I read more. > When? I think Black september sealed the fate of lebanon. They had no internal > unity to reject the palestinian refugees like Jordan did (via authoritarian methods). Was there no way to handle the palestinian refugees without authoritarian methods? Honest naive question, most people who voice an opinion on the subject seem to have extremely one-sided and narrow viewpoints, your comment demonstrates otherwise. I would appreciate a candid opinion from someone who sees the larger picture.
occamrazor 4y ago
Nitpick: Calvin was mostly active in Geneva, in the French speaking part. The most important exponent of the Reformation in Zurich was Zwingli. And the (German speaking) cantons in Central Switzerland that “founded” Switzerland are to this day mostly Catholic.

dotancohen 4y ago

This is what happened in south Syria. Before the Libyan mercenaries arrived, the real civil war started when citizens armed by the government revolted to a heavy-handed government crackdown against schoolchildren. Those citizens were armed with heavy weaponry by the Syrian ministry of defense, in case of Israeli attack. Then the displaced farmers revolted (this is why the war is sometimes blamed on climate change), then the Libyans came, then ISIS and Russia and the whole mess we see today.

tut-urut-utut 4y ago
How convenient to "forget" "western" factors and blame everyone else instead.
- dotancohen 4y ago
  From the way I saw it the Western factors came later, mostly in response to Russian and ISIS involvement, and thus fall into the category of "the whole mess we see today". Though I do see your point, many people like to cherry-pick parts of conflicts that serve their worldview and ignore other parts, so it may appear to you that was what I did as well. Both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict love to discuss certain events and limit the discussion to only those periods during which their favoured side was "right". So that was in fact not my intention. You are invited and welcome to mention the Western factors that you see relevant.
  - boomboomsubban 4y ago
    The Wikileaks diplomatic cables releases showed the US had been funding the opposition groups in Syria for years. Then, shortly after the war began CIA operation Timber Sycamore began supplying the opposition faction with weapons, supplies and training. Also, official US intervention happened before official Russian intervention. While I won't deny the Russian or ISIS involvement, the US was also always involved.
    - dotancohen 4y ago