国家：职能、结构和政治制度

根据维克多-莫尼埃的课程改编

Languages

Deutsch English Español Français Italiano

Português

法律入门

法律入门：关键概念和定义 ● 国家：职能、结构和政治制度 ● 法律的不同部门 ● 法律渊源 ● 法律的主要形成传统 ● 法律关系的要素 ● 法律的适用 ● 法律的实施 ● 瑞士从起源到20世纪的发展 ● 瑞士的国内法律框架 ● 瑞士的国家结构、政治制度和中立 ● 19世纪末至20世纪中叶国际关系的演变 ● 世界组织 ● 欧洲组织及其与瑞士的关系 ● 基本权利的类别和世代 ● 基本权利的起源 ● 十八世纪末的权利宣言 ● 二十世纪基本权利普遍概念的构建

国家作为政治学和历史学研究的核心概念，是一个相当复杂和重要的主题。我们对这一主题的探讨旨在揭示和理解构成这一重要政治实体的多个方面。通过沉浸于对国家的深入分析，我们旨在揭示国家的构成要素，如人口、领土和主权，并了解这些要素如何相互配合、相互作用，从而形成我们所说的国家的支柱。在寻求界定国家概念的过程中，我们还将研究国家履行的各种职能，从法律的制定到法律的实施，包括司法。在此过程中，我们将努力把握国家影响和构建社会的各种方式。

这种方法还将引导我们比较不同的国家结构，从单一制国家到邦联和联邦制国家。通过评估这些不同的模式，我们将试图了解它们的具体特点、优缺点以及每种模式在何种情况下最有效。最后，我们将从历史的角度来审视那些对国家概念的理解和演变产生过影响的标志性人物，并通过他们的反思来丰富我们的研究。通过这一探索，我们旨在对国家这一在我们的生活和历史中无处不在又神秘莫测的实体有一个更加细致和全面的了解。

国家是什么？

国家是现代世界政治和社会组织中一个复杂而基本的实体。国家的定义基于三个相互交织、相辅相成的关键要素。

首先，人口是国家的人的方面。它由生活在特定领土上并受同一政治权力管辖的所有个人组成。这些人通常具有共同的民族身份和文化价值观，并受到一套共同法律法规的约束。例如，法国人因其文化、语言和传统而与众不同，同时又统一在法兰西共和国的法律和原则之下。

其次，领土是国家行使权力的地理空间。它不仅包括陆地，还包括领水、领空，有时还包括海区。控制和划定这些领土至关重要。以中国为例，中国控制着广袤的领土，从人口稠密的沿海地区到与世隔绝的山区和沙漠地区，每个地区都被纳入国家的政治和行政架构。

最后，主权是赋予国家最高权威和独立性的原则。这意味着国家对其人口和领土拥有最终权力，不受外来干涉。主权体现在国家有能力制定和实施法律、执行独立的外交政策和进行自卫。美国就是一个鲜明的例子，它通过强大的联邦政府、自主立法和在国际舞台上的巨大影响力来行使主权。

人口、领土和主权这三个要素构成了国家赖以生存的基础。它们确定了国家的身份、结构和职能，并将国家与其他形式的组织或机构区分开来。这些要素的结合不仅确保了国家的内部稳定，也确保了国家在国际舞台上的认可和互动。

国家的职能

立法职能是民主国家运作的重要支柱，其主要作用是制定规则和通过法律。这一职能通常赋予一个立法机构，如议会或大会，由民众选出的代表组成。制定法律的过程复杂而有条不紊。它通常始于确定社会需求或问题。例如，网络犯罪的增加可能导致提出有关计算机安全的新法律。然后，立法机构成员（有时与行政部门合作）起草法案，经过辩论、修正，最终获得通过。一旦通过，法律就成为所有社会成员必须遵守的法律标准。法律可以涵盖从民法和商法到刑法、环境法规和社会保护等广泛领域。法律对于维护秩序、保护公民权利和指导社会互动至关重要。立法职能在确定公共政策方面也发挥着至关重要的作用。例如，通过支持可再生能源的法律可以引导国家向生态转型。同样，有关教育或公共卫生的法律也决定了这些基本服务的组织和供资方式。因此，立法职能是社会变革和发展的推动力。它使法律框架能够适应不断变化的现实，确保法律在满足民众需求方面始终具有相关性、公平性和有效性。

行政职能是国家治理结构的另一个基本支柱。其主要任务是管理国家的日常政策，适用或执行立法机构制定的法律和司法机构做出的裁决。这一职能一般由政府履行，政府由国家元首（如总统）或政府首脑（如总理）领导，由专注于教育、卫生、国防或经济等特定领域的各部委组成。行政部门负责执行立法机构通过的政策和法律，确保这些政策和法律按照立法意图得到有效实施。例如，如果立法机构通过了一项新的税法，那么行政部门就要通过建立必要的机构、向公众进行宣传以及确保依法征税等方式，确保税法得到正确实施。同样，行政部门在管理国家日常事务方面也发挥着至关重要的作用，如执行外交政策、管理危机或实施经济发展计划。行政部门还负责确保法律制度得到尊重，特别是通过与司法部门合作。它确保法律决定得到执行，公民权利得到保护。例如，在法院定罪的情况下，应由警察和监狱部门等行政部门执行判决。这样，行政部门就成为法律与公民日常生活之间的重要纽带，确保立法层面的决定转化为具体行动和有效的公共政策。行政部门的作用对于国家的稳定和正常运转，以及对于影响社会的法律和政策的实施至关重要。

司法职能（通常称为司法机构）在国家治理中发挥着至关重要的作用。它的主要任务是伸张正义，并确定提交给它的各种争端的适用法律。这一职能对于维护社会秩序和公平、确保尊重法律和个人权利至关重要。司法权体现在负责审理案件和解决争端的法院和法庭中。这一过程涉及解释立法机构制定的法律并将其适用于具体案件。法官和治安法官是这一职能的主要参与者，他们评估证据，听取争议各方的论点，并根据现行法律框架做出裁决。司法职能的一个重要方面是独立于国家的其他权力。这种独立性确保判决公正公平，不受外界影响或政治压力。例如，在商业纠纷中，法院必须完全依据相关法律和所陈述的事实做出判决，而不考虑政治或个人利益。司法职能还超出了解决私人当事方之间争端的范围。它包括对刑事犯罪的裁决，即国家通过检察官起诉被控违法的个人或实体。在此类案件中，司法机构负责确定被告是否有罪，并根据现行法律处以适当刑罚。司法职能对于维护法律和秩序以及保护个人权利和自由至关重要。它确保法律不仅仅是一纸空文，而是实际指导社会生活的活生生的原则。通过发挥公正仲裁者的作用，司法机构有助于建立信任和尊重规则的氛围，这对于任何民主和公平的社会都是至关重要的。

国家结构

单一制国家

单一制国家地图。

单一制国家是一种政治权力集中的国家组织形式。在这种体制下，公民与中央政府之间没有中间政治权力。行政分区，如省、地区或市镇，主要是为了便于领土的管理和行政，但它们没有重大的政治自主权。它们服从中央政府的指令和权力。

在单一制国家，只有一个政治推动中心。这意味着有关立法、政策和行政管理的重大决策都由中央政府作出。中央政府拥有立法权，可以制定全国统一的法律规则。这确保了在全国范围内执行法律和政策的一致性和统一性。单一制国家的单一宪法也强调了这种中央集权。宪法规定了政府的基本原则、公民权利和国家权力的限制。在单一制国家中，《宪法》统一适用于整个领土，各地区或地方当局没有单独的宪法或宪章。单一制国家的主要优点是简单高效。权力集中意味着决策更迅速、政策更连贯、管理更统一。然而，它也可能导致中央政府与地方需求之间存在一定距离，以及权力过度集中。单一制国家的例子包括法国和日本。在这些国家，虽然存在地方政府，但其权力和责任主要由中央政府界定和限制。这种结构反映了国家内部权力统一和集中的理想。

邦联

国家联盟是一种组织模式，其中几个主权国家决定联合起来实现特定目标。与其他形式的政治一体化不同，这种联盟维护每个成员国的主权和独立。邦联追求的目标通常是有限的，侧重于共同利益，如国防、外交政策或贸易。

邦联的建立以国际条约为基础，国际条约是参与国之间的正式协议。该条约规定了合作条件、联合机构的职权范围和决策程序。在联邦制国家，中央政府对其公民拥有直接权力，而在邦联制国家，中央政府则通过各成员国政府采取行动。邦联设立的联合机构可负责各种职能，如协调外交政策、管理共同防务或执行跨境经济法规。不过，其权力范围严格限于条约规定的领域。该机构做出的决定通常必须得到成员国的批准，这体现了成员国之间主权和平等的原则。

因此，邦联的特点是政府间合作而非超国家一体化。这意味着，尽管各成员国为实现共同目标而共同努力，但它们在大多数领域都保留了充分的自主权。历史上，瑞士联邦和《邦联条款》下的美利坚合众国（在现行宪法通过之前）都是邦联的典范。这些实体反映了各州在保持独立和民族特性的同时为共同利益而合作的愿望。

组建邦联的动机多种多样，但一般都围绕着在保持各成员国自治的同时追求共同利益。这些国家选择联合的主要原因通常是希望确保联盟内部的和平与安全，以及保护自己免受外部威胁。联盟内部的和平是一个至关重要的目标。通过联合，各成员国力图防止它们之间发生内部冲突。这种内部和平通过合作和相互协议得以促进，从而使争端和竞争得到和平处理。在历史或地缘政治造成邻国之间关系紧张的地区，这一点尤为重要。抵御外部威胁也是组建邦联的一个重要原因。通过联合，各国可以增强抵御外来侵略或影响的能力。其形式可以是签订共同防御协议、实施集体安全战略，甚至是共享资源以加强地区稳定。

为促进合作和决策，联盟通常会组织各种会议，让各成员国的代表汇聚一堂。这些会议是讨论、谈判和联合规划的重要论坛。代表们可以就政策进行辩论，提出联合倡议，解决共同的问题。这些会议的形式和频率取决于建立邦联的条约规定和所讨论问题的性质。这些会议对保持邦联的凝聚力和有效性至关重要，因为它们使成员国能够在尊重各自主权的同时协调政策和行动。因此，邦联是在各国的独立性与共同努力实现共同目标的必要性之间达成的一种微妙平衡。

The Federal State

Federal states in the world.

A federal state is a form of state organisation characterised by a combination of centralisation and decentralisation of power. In a federal state, several political communities, often called states, provinces or regions, are grouped together within a larger entity. Each of these communities has its own autonomy, with its own governments and legislation, but they are integrated into a higher national structure, the federal state.

A key feature of the federal state is the division of powers between the central government and the governments of the federated entities. This division is generally defined by a Constitution that sets out the powers and responsibilities of each level of government. The federated entities have the power to legislate and govern in certain areas, such as education, health and local transport, while the federal state has powers in areas such as defence, foreign policy and finance. In practice, only the federal state is recognised as a sovereign state on the international stage. It represents the federation as a whole in external relations, conducting foreign policy, concluding treaties and joining international organisations. This does not mean that the federated entities have no role in international affairs, but their actions in this area are generally coordinated or supervised by the federal state.

The federal state therefore combines the advantages of local governance, thanks to the autonomy of the federated entities, with those of unified and coherent governance at a higher level. This structure makes it possible to accommodate regional, ethnic or cultural diversity within the same state, while maintaining national unity and coordination. Examples of federal states include the United States, Germany, Canada and Australia. In each of these countries, the coexistence of a central government and autonomous regional or local governments reflects the complex, multi-layered nature of their governance.

The evolution from a confederation of states to a federal state is a historical process that has occurred in several cases, motivated by recognition of the advantages of a more integrated federal structure. This transition often reflects a desire to strengthen the union between member states while maintaining a degree of regional autonomy. In a confederation, member states retain a large degree of sovereignty and independence. Although this structure encourages cooperation on specific issues, it can lack cohesion and effectiveness, particularly in the areas of foreign policy, defence and economic management. Member states of a confederation may realise that they would be stronger and more cohesive under a federal structure, where a central government holds more substantial authority, while respecting the autonomy of the federated entities.

The move to a federal state allows member states to benefit from a centralised government for matters that concern the federation as a whole, while retaining their own government, legislative and judicial powers to manage local or regional affairs. This two-sided structure offers a balance between unity and diversity, enabling national and international affairs to be managed more effectively, while respecting regional particularities. In addition, the formation of a federal state can strengthen cohesion and stability between Member States. By sharing a common constitution, an integrated economic market and a unified foreign policy, the Member States create a sense of unity and solidarity. This federal structure can also lead to a better distribution of resources, coordination of economic and social policies, and a collective response to external challenges. The most emblematic example of this transition is the United States of America, which moved from a confederation under the Articles of Confederation to a federal state with the adoption of the Constitution in 1787. This change was motivated by the need for a stronger central government to effectively manage the country's affairs, particularly in the areas of finance, trade and international relations.

In a political system where the cantonal and federal levels of government exist side by side, there is a complex and nuanced structure of governance, typical of certain federal states such as Switzerland. This organisation allows for management at two levels, combining the advantages of national coordination with those of regional autonomy. At federal level, the central government is responsible for matters that affect the nation as a whole. This level of governance deals with areas such as foreign policy, national defence, international trade and important economic and legislative matters. The federal government has the power to legislate on matters that apply to the whole country, ensuring a degree of uniformity in national policies. It also plays a crucial role in representing the state on the international stage, making decisions that affect the country as a whole. In parallel, at cantonal level, regional or local bodies, with their own government and legislature, manage affairs more specific to their region. The cantons enjoy a degree of autonomy, allowing them to concentrate on areas such as education, local policing, public health and certain aspects of civil law. The national constitution or federal agreements define the powers of these cantonal governments, which can draw up laws and policies tailored to the needs and particularities of their population. This autonomy allows for regional diversity in the management of public affairs.

This coexistence of cantonal and federal states creates a flexible and adaptable system of governance. It enables the cantons to respond in a more targeted way to the demands and preferences of their citizens, while ensuring coherence and unity at national level. This model promotes participatory democracy, where citizens are involved in decision-making at different levels, thereby strengthening the legitimacy and effectiveness of the political system. This two-sided structure, combining cantonal autonomy and federal governance, offers a valuable balance between local diversity and national cohesion. It is emblematic of the way in which federal states can accommodate both the specific needs of the regions and the overall interests of the nation, creating a governance framework that is both robust and dynamic.

In a federal state, the three traditional functions of the state - legislative, executive and judicial - are exercised both at federal level and at the level of lower entities, such as cantons or member states. This structure creates a unique dynamic in which two centres of legal impetus coexist: federal law and cantonal or state law. At federal level, the central government exercises the legislative function by passing laws that apply to the whole nation. These laws typically concern areas of national interest, such as defence, foreign policy or major economic issues. Similarly, the federal executive manages the day-to-day business of the state at a national level, and the federal judiciary is responsible for interpreting and applying federal laws.

At the same time, the federated entities, such as the cantons in the case of Switzerland, also have the capacity to enact legislation in the areas under their jurisdiction. These cantonal laws may relate to matters specific to the region, such as local education, public health, and certain economic and social regulations. The cantonal governments also exercise executive and judicial functions within their jurisdiction, applying and interpreting cantonal laws. This duality of legislative powers between federal and cantonal law is one of the distinguishing features of federal states. It allows a degree of flexibility and adaptation to regional particularities while maintaining uniformity and cohesion at national level. Lower entities, while linked to the federal framework, retain significant autonomy to meet the specific needs of their population. Consequently, in a federal state, citizens live under the dual authority of federal and cantonal law. This coexistence of levels of governance promotes a balance between national unity and regional diversity, contributing to the stability and effectiveness of the political system as a whole.

The Confederation and the European Union (EU) are two forms of international organisation, but they differ considerably in their structure and operation. In a confederation, the main body is generally made up of representatives of the sovereign member states. These representatives act and take decisions in the interests of their respective states. The confederation, as such, is often a loose union in which the member states retain a large part of their sovereignty and independence. Decisions taken within the confederation usually require unanimity or a broad consensus of the Member States. The emphasis is on cooperation between sovereign states rather than the creation of a supranational entity with direct power over citizens. In contrast, the European Union represents a more integrated form of regional organisation. Although the Member States retain significant sovereignty, the EU has the characteristics of a supranational entity. The European Parliament, elected directly by the citizens of the Member States, represents the European people and plays a crucial role in the EU's legislative process. This direct democratic approach distinguishes the EU from a classic confederation. In addition, the EU has supranational institutions, such as the European Commission, the European Council and the Court of Justice of the European Union, which have executive, legislative and judicial powers that extend beyond national borders.

The EU is therefore more than just cooperation between states; it is a political and economic union with common policies in many areas, such as trade, the environment and the mobility of citizens. EU Member States share common legislation in certain areas and are bound by a set of treaties that define the rules by which the EU operates. The fundamental difference between a confederation and the European Union lies in the degree of integration and the nature of the representative institutions. Whereas a confederation is based on cooperation between sovereign states with limited power at central level, the EU represents deeper integration with supranational institutions having direct authority over certain aspects of the lives of European citizens.

The European Union (EU) is indeed a unique entity in the global political and institutional landscape, often described as a 'sui generis' organisation - a category in itself that does not fit into the traditional classifications of federal state or confederation. This singularity can be explained by the coexistence of the characteristics of these two forms of organisation, while at the same time presenting distinctive features of its own. On the one hand, the EU has elements of a confederation. The Member States retain a large degree of sovereignty, particularly in areas such as foreign policy and defence. Important decisions, particularly in the area of common foreign and security policy, often require unanimity among the Member States. This structure reflects the intergovernmental cooperation typical of a confederation, where states act together on the basis of their common interests while preserving their national independence. On the other hand, the EU has characteristics similar to those of a federal state. It has supranational institutions, such as the European Parliament, the European Commission and the Court of Justice of the European Union, which have powers that transcend national borders. The European Parliament, elected directly by the citizens of the Member States, is an example of democratic representation at supranational level. The EU also has common policies and legislation in areas such as the internal market, the environment and economic regulation, which are applied uniformly across the Member States. However, the EU differs from a classical federal state in that it has no sovereignty of its own; its sovereignty is derived from the Member States. Furthermore, although the EU has common legislation in some areas, the Member States retain a great deal of autonomy in other key areas, such as taxation and social affairs. The EU is a unique example of regional cooperation, combining aspects of a confederation and a federal state, while at the same time having its own distinctive features. This hybrid nature makes the EU a complex and constantly evolving entity, reflecting the diversity and growing interdependence of European states in a globalised world.

The political systems

A state's form of government is embodied and put into practice by its organs, or public authorities, which are the institutions through which decision-making, policy-making and the execution of government actions take place. These public authorities are generally structured into three interdependent but distinct branches: legislative, executive and judicial, each of which plays a crucial role in the governance of the State.

The legislative branch, often represented by a parliament or assembly, is the mainstay of lawmaking. Made up of elected representatives, it reflects the will of the people and is at the heart of democratic debate. For example, Congress in the United States and Parliament in the United Kingdom are the bodies where laws are debated, amended and passed, defining the norms that govern society. These legislative institutions are essential for shaping public policy and establishing the rules that influence all aspects of national life.

The executive branch, headed by figures such as the president or prime minister, is responsible for the day-to-day management of the state and the enforcement of laws. This power includes various ministries and agencies responsible for specific sectors such as defence, foreign affairs or the economy. In France, for example, the president and the government, comprising various ministers, are at the centre of state administration, implementing laws and managing international relations, national security and economic policies.

As for the judiciary, it plays the crucial role of arbiter in the interpretation of laws and ensures that justice is dispensed fairly. The courts and tribunals that make up this branch are responsible for resolving disputes, judging the conformity of actions with the constitution and ensuring that laws are applied fairly. In countries such as Germany and Canada, the judicial systems operate independently of the other branches of government, ensuring that legal decisions are taken without political influence and in strict accordance with the law.

The structure and interaction of these three powers determine the form of government and are essential to maintain balance, avoid abuse of power and ensure democratic and accountable governance. The separation and balance of powers ensures that the different branches of government effectively represent and serve the interests of the population, while respecting the rule of law and democratic principles. This balance is vital for political stability and the legitimacy of government in the eyes of the people.

The monarchy

Monarchy is a political system characterised by the presence of a monarch, such as a king or queen, as head of state. In this system, the monarch's position is often hereditary, passing from generation to generation within the same royal family. The specifics of the monarch's role and power can vary considerably from one monarchy to another, depending on the constitutional and historical structure of each country.

In the case of absolute monarchy, the monarch holds total, exclusive and unlimited power over the state. This type of monarchy was more widespread throughout history, particularly in Europe during certain periods. In an absolute monarchy, the monarch is not bound by written laws or a constitution, and exercises total control over the government and administration of the country. The monarch's decisions are final and he often has legislative, executive and judicial power. A famous historical example of absolute monarchy is that of France under the reign of Louis XIV, where the king had unchallenged power, epitomised by his famous phrase "L'État, c'est moi" ("I am the State"). In such monarchies, the monarch was often considered to rule by divine right, i.e. chosen by and representing God's will on earth, which further strengthened his absolute power. Today, most existing monarchies are constitutional, meaning that the monarch's power is limited by a constitution and often exercised within a democratic framework, with an elected government managing the affairs of state. In these systems, the role of the monarch is usually ceremonial, with little real power over political or governmental decisions. Examples of such constitutional monarchies include the United Kingdom, Sweden and Japan.

The adage "Si veut le Roy, si veut la loi" expressed by the French jurist Pierre Loisel (1536 - 1617) captures the essence of absolute monarchy, where the king's will is imposed as law. This principle reflects the conception of monarchical power at the time, when the monarch was not only the head of state, but also the supreme source of legislation. In an absolute monarchy, the king or queen is considered the ultimate authority, with his or her decisions and wishes having the force of law. This means that the monarch is not required to follow pre-established laws or consult other governing bodies before taking decisions. The law is therefore the direct product of the monarch's will and applies to all subjects without exception. This system concentrates all powers - legislative, executive and judicial - in the hands of the monarch. This approach to governance was typical of several European monarchies in the 16th and 17th centuries. It was part of an era when the notion of the divine right of kings was widely accepted, legitimising the monarch's absolute power as being granted and sanctioned by divine authority. The example of Neuchâtel as an ecclesiastical monarchy under the Prince-Bishop of Basel also illustrates this form of governance. In such monarchies, religious and civil authority were often merged, reinforcing the idea that royal or princely power was both temporal and spiritual. Today, these notions of absolute monarchy have largely evolved towards more democratic and constitutional forms of governance, where the power of the monarch is limited and balanced by other state institutions and by respect for constitutional laws.

The oligarchy

Oligarchy is a political system in which power is held and exercised by a small group of people. This form of government differs from monarchy, where power is concentrated in the hands of a single individual, usually a king or queen. In an oligarchy, power is shared between a few individuals who can be distinguished by their wealth, social status, education, corporate affiliation or membership of a certain elite. Unlike a democracy, where power is supposed to reside in the population as a whole, oligarchy involves a concentration of power within a small segment of society. This ruling minority can exert its influence in different ways, often by controlling the main economic, political or military levers. The decisions and policies adopted by an oligarchic government generally reflect the interests and visions of this small group, rather than those of the majority of the population.

Oligarchy can sometimes be disguised as a democracy, with formal elections and institutions. In practice, however, the real power lies in the hands of a few influential individuals or families. These groups can maintain their influence through various means, such as control of the media, large corporations, political funding, or networks of relationships and patronage. Historically, many political systems have had oligarchic characteristics. For example, in some ancient Greek city-states, power was often held by a small elite of wealthy and influential citizens. Similarly, at different periods in history, many societies have seen their government dominated by an aristocratic class or an economic elite. Oligarchy is often criticised for its lack of representativeness and fairness, as it excludes the majority of citizens from effective participation in the political process and tends to favour the interests of a small section of society to the detriment of the common good.

Democracy

Democracy is a political system based on the principle of popular sovereignty, where power belongs to the people. In a democracy, citizens play a central role in decision-making and the exercise of power, either directly or through elected representatives. In a direct democracy, citizens actively participate in the formulation and adoption of laws and policies. This direct exercise of power often takes the form of referendums or popular assemblies where citizens vote on specific issues. A historical example of direct democracy is the ancient Athenian city-state, where citizens met to debate and decide on the affairs of state. In most modern democracies, however, the system is representative: citizens elect representatives to govern them and make decisions on their behalf. This form of democracy allows for more practical management of a state's affairs, especially when the population is too large for everyone to participate directly in governance. Elected representatives, such as members of parliament, senators and the head of state, are supposed to reflect the will of the people and act in the general interest.

Representative democracy is usually accompanied by various institutions and mechanisms to ensure transparency, accountability and fairness in the political process. These include regular, free and fair elections, civil rights such as freedom of expression and association, a free press, and independent judicial systems to protect citizens' rights. Countries such as the United States, Germany, Canada and Australia are examples of representative democracies. In these systems, although citizens do not directly make political decisions, they play a crucial role by electing those who govern them and by participating in public debate, which shapes the state's policies and laws.

The quote from Heinrich Rudolf Schinz, an eminent 19th century Zurich jurist, underlines a fundamental understanding of democracy and the role of government, particularly in the Swiss context. His assertion that "all governments in Switzerland must recognise this, that they exist only insofar as they are of the people and act by the people and for the people" reflects the idea that the legitimacy of a government rests on its representation of and service to the people. This perspective is particularly relevant to Switzerland, a country that has long valued the principles of direct and participatory democracy. In 1830, when Schinz expressed this view, Switzerland was in the midst of a period of political transformation and development. His ideas resonated with the emerging democratic ideals of responsible government that was responsive to the needs and wishes of its citizens.

Schinz's emphasis on governments being "of the people" means that authorities must emanate from the consent and will of citizens. This implies a transparent and fair democratic process in which citizens have a meaningful role in electing their representatives and in political decision-making. The expression "governed by the people" underlines the importance of citizen participation in governance. In the Swiss system, this translates into mechanisms of direct democracy, such as referendums and popular initiatives, where citizens can directly influence legislation and public policy. As for "acting for the people", this refers to the obligation of governments to work in the general interest, implementing policies and laws that benefit society as a whole, rather than serving particular interests or elites. Schinz's vision is emblematic of the democratic principles that continue to be at the heart of governance in Switzerland, where power is exercised transparently and accountably, with the active participation of citizens. This reflects a commitment to a democracy that is not just a form of government, but also an expression of the values and aspirations of the people.

Abraham Lincoln's quote at the dedication of the cemetery at the Battle of Gettysburg in 1863 is one of the most famous speeches in American history and a pillar of democratic thought. His words, "May we, by our determination, see that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation, under the shadow of God, may be reborn in liberty... and that government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the face of the earth", resonate deeply with the values of democracy and freedom. Lincoln delivered this speech against the backdrop of a wrenching civil war, where the nation was deeply divided over issues of freedom and slavery. The Battle of Gettysburg, one of the bloodiest of the American Civil War, was a crucial moment in the conflict. By evoking the sacrifices of fallen soldiers, Lincoln sought to give meaning to those losses and to reinforce the nation's commitment to the principles of liberty and unity.

The idea that "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" must not "perish from the face of the earth" is a powerful affirmation of democratic principles. Lincoln emphasised that democracy was not only essential for the United States, but also an ideal to be preserved for all mankind. This concept implies that government should be based on the will of the people, that it should be exercised by representatives elected to serve the interests of the people, and that its ultimate goal must be the well-being of the people. The Gettysburg Address, though brief, had a profound and lasting impact, not only on American society, but also on the global perception of democracy and freedom. It continues to be cited as an eloquent example of leadership in times of crisis and a powerful reminder of the fundamental values on which democracies are built.