Sometimes in life an idea hits you with such blinding clarity that you can’t get it out of your head and you have to act on it. That is what happened to me earlier this year.

As a result of meeting a wonderful woman called Pam Giddy, the director of the Power inquiry, I was asked to join a panel discussion at the organisation’s conference. The Power inquiry was set up to examine why people are alienated from the political system, and the purpose of the conference was to discuss its findings. Aware that bigwigs such as David Cameron, Sir Menzies Campbell and Ed Miliband were also speaking, and feeling self-conscious about my lack of expertise, I went into school swot mode and read the report from cover to cover.

I was shocked by what I read. The report set out, in damning detail, research that revealed the extent to which people hold politicians in contempt and have lost faith in the political system itself. Everyone knows there is problem. A recent poll found that 78 per cent agree that in order to win elections parliamentary candidates make promises they have no intention of keeping; 70 per cent believe that most MPs do not care deeply about the problems of ordinary citizens; and 71 per cent think that MPs care more about special interests than people such as themselves.

I was brought up to value Britain’s democratic tradition and to think of it as a cornerstone of national stability. Sadly it is clear that most citizens no longer feel any real sense of ownership of our democracy. Politics is something that happens to them and around them, not something they feel that they can control in any meaningful way. And it is not apathy but disempowerment that is the root cause of the problem — just look at how many join single-issue groups or were prepared to march for the countryside or against the Iraq war.

One of the many merits of the Power Report is that it offers not only a diagnosis, but also a series of suggestions for restoring the credibility of politics and re-engaging disillusioned voters. When I read these, one proposal leapt out the page at me. It was the idea of introducing citizens’ initiatives, based on the Swiss model.

Switzerland has one of the highest rates of political participation of any advanced democracy. It also scores impressively in international surveys that measure levels of voter satisfaction. Most observers acknowledge that this is a direct result of the country’s system of direct democracy.

Swiss citizens have the right to call a referendum on any subject they want as long they can gather the required number of signatures. At a national level this is set at just under 1.5 per cent of the electorate — about 100,000 people. If enough names are collected within an 18-month period, then a proposal can be put on the ballot paper and voted on by the general public. If it is passed, it becomes law. A study highlighted in Richard Layard’s book, Happiness, even showed that Swiss in cantons with the most direct democracy were happier than those with more limited rights.

I am convinced that Britain should adopt a version of the Swiss system. It is the answer to the growing crisis of legitimacy faced by our political leaders. Politicians who are instinctively hostile to giving voters a bigger say and who prefer to get a five-yearly contract to run the country as they see fit should wake up and smell the coffee. The world has changed.

Britain is a sophisticated 21st-century society, but we still make do with a crude 19th-century system of limited and indirect democracy. A general election is held once every four or five years and power handed to a political party that forms a government. During that time hundreds, perhaps thousands, of important decisions affecting the lives of millions are made by a handful of politicians and civil servants. We can’t go on like this.

Swiss-style direct democracy has the power to transform not merely the legitimacy of political decision-making, but also the quality of decisions. Who is better placed to determine the advisability of building a new supermarket on the edge of a town? Local residents who understand the situation and will have to live with the consequences of any decision? Or John Prescott, sitting in Whitehall?

To those who fear demagoguery or rule by tabloid, I would urge them to examine the reality of what happens in other countries that operate variations of the Swiss system. Votes to bring back capital punishment have been defeated. Proposals to raise taxes have been approved. Soft drugs have been legalised. All the evidence shows that there is no inevitable ideological direction of travel. Ideas get a hearing and tend to be decided on their merits. Often, the fear of facing a vote on a policy leads governments to consult more widely and seek compromise.

Whatever the eventual outcome, there is one invariable consequence of referendums that no one disputes: voters are always far better informed about the political issues under discussion at the end of the process. I am convinced that this is the way forward for British politics. That is why I am launching a new organisation, OUR SAY, to campaign for the introduction of citizens’ initiatives. There is one thing I’m certain of: we are no threat to politicians. On the contrary, we are the answer to their problems.

Times Recommends

• Hysteria alert: Fab One tour starts
• Whodunnits? A cultural religion
• Prison works. So why won't we admit it?