Rarely has a Swiss referendum on the "Milner Initiative" provoked as much passion as the one held on March 3. Small businessman Thomas Milner launched his proposal just five years ago. The chosen slogan, "Against the swindle", announced a controversial intention: it was to limit the remuneration - salaries and bonuses - of the managers of listed companies. Enough of the scandalous multimillion-dollar bonuses, he said. Business organizations and a large part of the political class mobilized against him: his crusade was a threat to the competitiveness of companies, which would lose their best executives. His foreseeable exodus would endanger the capitalist sanctuary that is Switzerland. Major media, allied with the political and economic establishment, took it upon themselves to criticize Milner's initiative with all sorts of arguments subject . But the people were not fooled and their decision was unequivocal: 68% of the voters supported his proposal. Forty-six percent of the electorate voted, one of the highest numbers in history (second only recently to the vote on minarets). A few days have passed and there is no trace of an apocalypse: life goes on with Swiss regularity.

As is typical of Swiss democracy, the defeated have accepted the verdict of the ballot box in a sporting manner. In the words of Pascal Gentinetta, spokesman for the Swiss employers' association, "it is now a matter of ensuring the proper implementation of this initiative", for which it has offered its constructive financial aid .

The core of Milner's proposal applies to all countries: giving shareholders, i.e. the owners of companies, the power to decide the salaries of managers. It is urgent to put a stop to the excesses of so many executives, who have effectively hijacked the will of the owners. The problem has also occurred in Spain, and we have seen timid attempts to implement guidelines for good corporate governance: the Olivencia Code (1998), the Aldama Code (2003) and the Unified Code (2006). These codes are as well-intentioned as they are inoperative, due to their purely voluntary nature. Companies are not obliged to apply them and do not comply with them: the Spanish experience with self-regulation leaves much to be desired.

The road to good corporate governance has been a long one: the first goal was to find out what executives earned, as this item was often masked in the income statement. Now we are being sold as a great advance the fact that the general shareholders' meeting board can ratify the proposal remuneration presented by the management. When will it be the shareholders who decide on the salaries of the directors? Where is the Spanish Milner who will impose this change in the corporate management ? The battle may be a long one: in Switzerland it took five years of hard work to bring the matter to Parliament. Here it could take many more, given the inferior quality of our democracy (and the greater Degree of corruption).

Shareholders of publicly traded companies are not little sisters of charity. They have invested their money in those shares and are looking for maximum returns. Therefore, they will appreciate the ability of good managers and will be willing to pay them a good salary to prevent them from going to skill. Why then are they so afraid of recognizing such a basic right for shareholders? It is sarcastic that the publication of management salaries is being sold to us as a great example of transparency, something that company leaders have resisted for many years.

This discussion sample is one of the weaknesses of financial capitalism: the stock market provides access to capital and stimulates economic activity, but at the same time imposes a short-term vision. Many investors want profits now, and as soon as executive compensation is made dependent on the stock market price, anything goes in order to raise that price - and one's own bonus. The Boards of Directors, which theoretically should supervise the management of the executives, very often do not comply with their mission statement and, by charging substantial per diems for attend to mere formal sessions, they become accomplices.

The final touch of the scandal is the internship, so widespread and so perverse, of firing with millionaire bonuses to managers who lead their companies to ruin. However legal they may be, these golden parachute contracts are a disgrace. European public opinion is on fire. The clamor of the street could no longer be ignored, so the European Parliament and the EU presidency have agreed to limit the payment of these controversial bonuses to bankers. The best of regulations, including prison sentences, will not be enough to clean up the business environment - this will be down to the sum of exemplary individual conduct - but it will help.