 Thank you Hans and and Guilcin Guilcin Yeah, well no problem for the invitation and I Was really pleased to come here again and to see that so many of you came to this conference irrespective of these intrusive measures by different governments It's now about a short history of the Swiss Constitution We have several constitutional Subjects today. We have almost a Swiss day. I think today with Daniel model in the beginning and my speech then you about the subject that has to do with Switzerland, so I'd hear now about the history a short history. It's a small country. So the history will be short An official version so to speak once you ask what is The history of your constitution you would hear perhaps it starts with the myth Back in 12th in 2002 91 1st of August, you know our national holiday that famous oath of Rootley I'll come to that more in detail then we have a phase of the so-called old Confederation Where this start of three can tones grew up to 13 can tones and then we have a Accident so to speak in 1515 there was a battle and the defeat of the Swiss At Marino I will come to that it has a certain role within the history of our Constitution then we have a long phase I would say of overlapping treaties alongside many many Religious and political conflicts as a well, that's a constitution of mutual conflict so to speak then we have now For the first time a top-down structure Implemented by Napoleon the Republic Elvetik according to this liberal liberal quote unquote intentions of Napoleon then we have a phase In the meantime, it's 22 can tones you can tones coming up This is not a top-down, but it is again a bottom-up structure in the first phase they call it Restoration later on it's red generation. We come to that in detail We have a small civil war All these national countries had civil wars in the 19th century So small countries had a small civil war. That's our son the boom scream. I come to that actually that was you can compare it with you know Italy or the United States It's a sort of conflict between Unionists that one that that one that war and Federalists so as everywhere in that area and Then we have in 1848 the Would say the first official Constitution of this kind of state Switzerland is today and everybody says today This is the birth of the modern liberal Democratic Switzerland. We are so proud of I come to that later and since then there are numerous partial and to general revisions of our Constitution without heavy material impact even relatively recently in 1999 Switzerland adopted a completely new Constitution but without the material changes. It was just a formal brush up so to speak So this is the official row not too interesting Now let's start with this myth. This is more You know, this wakes you up a little bit after lunch This beautiful place here the root lee Where this oath took place In a summer night that must have been a night the light night in a way If you look at Wikipedia, which is of course a sort of big truth, you know They say that's the first constituent assembly of continental European so to speak so there we had a a sort of of first Constitution adopted by this assembly, but what took really place according to the myth and This means according to Friedrich Schiller in this famous novel William Tell the big hero of Switzerland Hero of freedom against tyranny in this in this novel He described quite precisely this This root lee meadows around it by high rocks and wooden wooded ground In the background the lake is observed and over it a moon rainbow In the early part of the same I never saw a moon rainbow. You did you? But maybe at that time there was a moon rainbow The prospect is closed by lofty mountains with glaciers rising behind them The stage is dark, but the lake and glaciers glisten in the moonlight. So a beautiful scene according to Schiller There it is Really, you can go there It's not just with Schiller, but it's a true place in Switzerland. You can go there You don't see the glaciers here anymore. Maybe that's because of the climate change in the meantime, you know But it's there you can go as a tourist now. Let's look a bit closer at that happening there When these People coming together these three can tones the representative of three can tones. What did they say? What did they swear according to them Schiller? First swear read it. This is an old-fashioned translation. I find somewhere in the internet Swear we the oath of our confederacy. No, we shall be unified a fork of brothers Never to part in danger or in death. They repeat these words with three fingers raised. You see it So I put it in red because it's a socialist part, you know unification Then they said other things to be swear to put our trust in God most high And not to quail before the might of man. Okay, this is a resistance that that's okay And then what is really fine? I think that's why I put it in blue We swear we will be free as where our fathers and Sooner died and live in slavery all repeat as before and embrace each other So this is the precise wording of what took place there according to Schiller Now there is a other actor beside this Rootley community Namely the the hero of the noble, you know there I can introduce him William tell with his son He actually is not a politician He does not take place at the Rootley He is not the debater He is the actor he acts. He doesn't talk very much. He acts. He's a hunter by profession. That's why he's his crossbow He shoots not on tyrants Except sometimes but on on animals on deer on On birds as a hunter and he is occupied with his Family himself his house and that's why this is a famous famous Birding in Switzerland. This novel is quite quite well-known the Ackstein house as parts in Zimmerman This says that and so he he works at home He repairs some some door and then he says and so many things the door will hold a while The axe at home off safe and saves the carpenter He has not to hire other people. He makes what he has to do himself. That's William tell and Now the evil part the third part. This is Hermann Geslach. This is the incorporation the symbol of wickedness For instance, he says and he is the representative So say what you please. I'm the Empress servant and my first care must be to do his pleasure So he Represents some represents some higher Concentrated big power Here down on this world at this place. He is the personified Brutality in this novel for instance in a very well-known scene too. He says to tell this You shall shoot an apple from your boys head. I do desire and command it so He was he was offended Hermann Geslach that till that tell did not you know incline before him and that's why he said you're a good hunter I I was said so now I will check whether that's true You will shoot an apple from the head of you boy and tells oh no, please not and that all all around standings were shocked by that but he insisted The story went well. He he he hit the apple and not the head of his Son and he took revenge after that. I will come to that too. So this is the evil bad wicked Gessler So I will constitutional players one could say we have this assembly. We have till and we have Gessler and For the for the interface so to speak you have this aggressive oppression by Gessler you have resistance the collective resistance from the whole group and you have the individual defense from tell What is interesting by the way, and I will come to that later What is the relation the internal relation so to speak between this group and the individual? So is that perhaps also a sort of aggression within the small internal relationship and aggression towards the individual and as a consequence a Defense reaction Against this whole group So these are these constitutional players and now What happens? Of course collective defense there nothing happens they discuss on the Rootley But the individual defense there something happens after that scene I mentioned before with the apple and the boy and so on Some scenes later this happened. I Will show it to you a bit closer Here you see according to this act 4 scene 3 of the novel tell shot Gessler dead He took revenge For this humiliation for this brutality and the last word Gessler says cries out According to Schiller that shot was tells and that was the Starting shot for the whole revolution then then after that Those politicians know from the Rootley they be started in their revolution But that was the starting shot without the individual resistance that collective resistance would not have taken place I like that picture very much Have the connection of it But now let's go closer to the Constitution now we have these Three parts we know in the meantime the red one we shall be unified a fork of brothers if you translate it into constitutional terms you think about status collectivism and even You think about Concentration of power so even this enemy in a way is included in this red line collectivist part of that constitution On the other side and this there you have a top-down approach On the other side or on the bottom side you wouldn't say status collectivism You would in constitutional terms or in international terms perhaps you would say this is rather a non-aggression treaty between these people Not not even mainly against a third but within we promise to each other that we won't attack each other and Historically, this was what happened in that time the other one the the red part here, of course, you have this bottom up approach and This this this middle part, which is perhaps you could call it a defense alliance That is not historical historical is just this bottom part of Imprinciple mutually not attacking each other of course with some aspects also to this third power this Habsburgian power So we have these elements that mainly the difference between that top-down aspect and the bottom-up aspect now Out of this myth, of course, it's a sophisticated myth according to Schiller We have sort of contract contradicting constitutional principles we have on the top side this United collectivity Unified general goals you have monopolized power They all together form a power and you could call it an archist structure, this is a notion not often used but sometimes Sometimes it's used and it means a structure with our archie archaic Greek Archie with a monopolized top instance. This is an archist structure we have this on the one side and There you have this top-down approach and on the other side on the bottom side you have the contrary you have separated individuality Incorporated in William Tell you have a variety of many personal goals you have decentralized powers and you have As a consequence an archist structure, which is essentially a bottom-up structure and Now to put it more. I mean conventionally into the content of a Constitution how we know constitutions We have in the Constitution in the Swiss Constitution in the American Constitution in German Constitution all these these well-known constitutions of national national states you have these Items you have on the arch archist goals or structures There is you know these goals of security as a state function Ecology energy education culture sport infrastructure communication all as they say Function that the state must supply to society then good things you know prevention of property and what what is interesting at this connection you have here branches of government Which is or the the aspect of branches of government which is a which is a a treacherous expression branches three branches of one tree, you know You do not have three trees you have one tree with three branches. So all belongs to the same so What what is intended? Division of power Is the opposite is true. It's a concentration of power Three branches in one tree. So these are the typical red aspects Then our kids aspects and now on the bottom side you have anarchist elements That are also in these conventional Constitutions the fundamental rights such as life limb and liberty so the classical liberal rights freedom rights negative rights property rights free speech and so on the rule of law that Statist activities or states activities must be governed by law Which is simply not the case because as you know, it's the state itself Who defines the laws and he privileges himself all the time? so there should be a rule of law in this Constitution or It's written in these constitutions, but it's not the fact Separation of power. There is no separation of power. There is concentration of power And Accordingly you have this top-down aggressiveness as we we currently know Very very strongly and you on the other side you have this bottom-up defensiveness And now again to go back on the historical context now on the time beam Let's start again with this 1291 myth and then one could say it's with so that we have an anarchist tradition In this sense I developed now in the sense of this blue part here We have for first this old Confederation which as I told was not much more than a non-aggression treaty with growing numbers of contents and Afterwards we had this permanent conflicts phase the beginning that was rather religious conflicts between Catholics and Protestants and add in other places too and Later on more political conflicts between conservatives and liberals and One very prominent conflict was was that small war I mentioned before this Sonderbunds Krieg that took place in 1847 One could say until then we had this anarchist Tradition of the Swiss Constitution There were some exceptions in 1515 I mentioned it briefly in the beginning that there was an attempt By this confederation to become a global player To become a military force to incorporate the Duchy of Milano But the French King did not agree with that and he was quite stronger than the Swiss and Defeated them at the Battle of Marignano in northern northern Italy and heavily That was a big defeat But good businessmen as they were they entered then into a long-time contract with with the French French King To supply mercenaries and to get money That was a long-time good corporation One could say that was an archist error Besides this anarchist tradition But then came archist elements first I already mentioned Napoleon in 1798 with his Republic elvetique Then again one phase a blue one That went back to a decentralized structure just a treaty between in the meantime 22 can tones This is the phase. We will hear something about in the next speech. I think from Hans Then we have this I mentioned already this famous Constitution of 1848 Which was contrary to international law because it was Forced to the minority by a majority even though according to international law unanimity would have been required So this is typical top-down, you know, our case structure then That that's a later Amendment of the Constitution where the vote the public vote the people's vote on it not only on elections Was introduced then the codification of civil law. I added that after the speech of this morning of Stephen Kinsella when when he talked about what is the law? Constitution of law not now to explain it in detail, but it's typical that Around 1900 in Switzerland. There was a first unified civil code Not the Constitution but the civil code but in close connection with this unification and top-down developments And since then just formal update as I told you until now So one could say and this is so the overall picture after this anarchist tradition Until the 19th century and we have a clearly Arquist development Like a bit everywhere or one could say out of Gessler became Napoleon and out of Napoleon became our two days federal state So this is a epigone of Gessler if you want That's not the official version of the history of Swiss constitution now What is then the content now of this? Constitution today if you look at the today formally Being in force You see these elements we just met before These are kiss golds and on the other side this anarchist element But if you look at it closer, then you see that the aggressiveness of the red part Is becoming more and more and stronger and stronger and to be it to say it a little bit simplified The blue part is crossed out If you have now discussions about you know Reducing fundamental rights personal freedom freedom of business by these corona measures You lose almost always in Switzerland So I think this is unfortunately a bit the situation we have today now To look back again. Why did it come that after such a long blue tradition? Anarchist tradition Things like that that heavily Arquist structures came into you know Political life of Switzerland. I look back very much back. I broaden the view to 10,000 before Christ and Here too, I think you see a long development Underlying The anarchist tradition we have in Switzerland, of course in other places also maybe in Switzerland More than in other places, but this is not just you know, this did not just start in 1291 But that's that's the result of a really long Development, and I think you can really go back. I'm not a specialist for that But I'm quite convinced if you look at anthropological or sociological theories and Studies then you see that you can say at least since this neolithic revolution you have concrete structures where you can say These are decentralized structures diversity. You can say anarchist structures If you go all through that, you know that there is agriculture coming up in that area Also physical change, lactose tolerance, then settlements you have family structures, small tribes local princes, federally structures, and so on until I would say in Switzerland until 1848 So this is a long tradition, but why and where does this red line come from and There too, of course, you have a certain tradition not that long, but you have some So if you see these national states were pre pre desist more before those were Absolutist states. We had earlier the Roman Empire. We had a good presentation about yesterday But where did those power this big power concentrations come from and I think what is interesting They come from an event not too far away. It's just 5,000 years old that that's quite recent that that's yesterday if you look at it in a broad view yesterday big cities arising in neighboring Mesopotamia and Later Babylon later the the Egypt So this was a new phenomenon. This was not this came not out of a long tradition So I tried to picture it like that. I think out of this said it said and terraness connection, you know a certain Accumulation of many people at the same relatively small place and so on so that gave rise to these new and very impressive power concentrations, so that was a and you Development so one could say The long-term Development or evolution is on the blue side. It's an individual one While this red top-down aggressive Power concentrated aspect is a relatively new development You can even look further back This is beyond, you know Philosophy or history. It's just I would say pure pure natural science Seven million years back Lengthily before Homo sapiens you see at the right side Homo sapiens I put there Maybe he will become even more sapiens than he is today Somewhere tomorrow, which says in a hundred thousand years or so Homo sapiens as such he is I think the time frame given to him is is around minus five hundred thousand Language coming much later about a hundred thousand, but this is about like us in a way But there are pre-pre-ancestors giving much back Homo erectus, which was a important thing to to stand on two two legs instead of four legs to look around to judge the situation and I think what is interesting back to early hominids to primal primal moth so species Lentily before us that were sort of ancestors of later hominids and These kind of species until then the Homo sapiens what is typical for all them their Big abilities their big skills their special skills that gave them advantages over much stronger other animals was individual self consciousness Was self responsibility was self competence Each is competent for himself, which does not exclude to cooperate in a group of hunters for instance Not it's excluded all but any combination any group is based on each member's decision or more or less conscious will and I would say and this is not ideological, but just as a natural fact that this is Maybe the most prominent aspect in the whole behavioral revolution of man Of course, I said the title a long history of trial and error You know evolution is not according to a plan to a goal it goes as it goes and maybe there are Developments that are not Successful that they do not prove useful in real life so there are Beside successes, there are errors one there one there always errors, but they they have Vanished they have disappeared because that's that's The essence of Being an error it didn't prove useful so it disappeared here one there one here one and now There is an interesting small error happening just recently Plus recently about 5,000 years ago, it's not a small error errors go by Let's hope and if you have these seven million, you know this broad view you even have to take the magnifying glass to look at and what was this error that Took place recently It was the state The state is a neighbor of the evolution of human behavior I think this is maybe the most accurate description of this phenomenon this strange phenomenon of these accumulations of power that You know that they contain the attitude that some organs of this organization are competent for all individuals This is an error of evolution and I'm quite convinced that this errors error we go by If I'm optimist it will go by while humans remain alive Which says that they follow libertarian ideas for instance and and You know realized that was an error. Okay, you can make error But you can become riser and that's why we leave that alone and go go on on the blue line instead of the red one If I will be pessimist with which is not the case then it will also disappear But along with the species That's not excluded. I would say Once you see these developments to the world state Then I could imagine such scenarios Which makes it even more useful to work on the blue line now to some up or to come to a Conclusion again the in Switzerland again. Oh very very small and You can overview it We have this constitution we saw this high aggressiveness right now especially and We have seen that the blue part is a way. This is as I said before showed before. This is our two days Constitution now actually the medicine is quite simple. We have to to change the crossing out We have to do this That would be the constitution on the blue line a Constitution that omits all these red things We do not need them because as you see out of this very long evolutionary tradition all What functions in human societies is what is ultimately based with the Individual so the bottom-up approach the defensive approach against power structures and all what is Then let's say in a Level above the individuals general social aspects day two will be Influenced a bottom-up there will no be no there will be no program or goals or anything over individual goals on that level And there will be an outcome of many many individual decisions Corporations always based with the individuals bottom-up and that of course will have an outcome also in Higher spheres of society. I think that would be the approach. So if this is true So we know the solution so we know it. Oh, let's do it, but then It's it's not that easy to defend this blue part To realize this essential aspect this defensiveness of This blue part I'm not sure what I should do. I just know that William tell would know what to do So, thank you for your attention