Direct democracy in Switzerland means that new laws enjoy general acceptance, but on the other hand it slows down the political process.

upporters of the direct democracy system say it forces members of the Federal Assembly to seek compromise when debating a bill. They will not insist on controversial points because this could mean the entire measure being lost.

It also gives members of opposition groups or minorities the chance to provoke discussion on issues that might otherwise be ignored.

Critics of the system point out that it is slow and cumbersome. Five years can pass before a popular initiative becomes law. Referendums can also be used to delay social or political change. One example is the adoption of women's suffrage, which was approved by parliament in 1959, but then rejected by the (entirely male) electorate in a subsequent referendum. Men only agreed to accept the project in 1971.

Critics also point out that the "double majority" rule gives an unfair advantage to the smaller cantons - which tend to be conservative.

The anomaly was clearly pointed up in 1992, when the Swiss were asked whether the country should join the European Economic Area. The popular vote was split almost exactly down the middle, but the cantonal vote was a hefty 16 to 7 against.

Ironically, any move to reform the system would need the approval of these small cantons - who are not eager to give up their voting power.

In a fast-changing world of instant communication and globalisation, the challenge of balancing democratic involvement against greater efficiency can never be settled once and for all - neither in Switzerland nor anywhere else.