Direct democracy in the Netherlands

Arjen Nijeboer

Referendum Platformwww.referendumplatform.nl

Conference “Initiative for Europe – A citizen’s agenda”, Brussels, 23-24 March 2006

Netherlands - introduction Unitary state Basic local and regional law decided at national level

(‘Municipal Law’ and ‘Provincial Law’) Lower governments are “arms and legs” of national state Mayors and provincial ‘presidents’ appointed by national

government 93% of taxes raised at national level, then distributed to

provinces and municipalities; tax raising power of lower governments is very small and even decreasing

Voter turnout at local / provincial level much lower than national elections

Strong representative system; Constitution does not mention “popular sovereignty” or “democracy”

This system was introduced by the French under Napoleon! Before it was much more federalist.

Netherlands - societyTraditional big similarity with Scandinavian countries:

Social-democratic culture Big collective sector, high taxes Big welfare state Strong central state Strong representative culture; the “common good” /

general interest safeguarded by politicans

However this is changing: System challenged by ‘populists’ and ‘third way’

parties (Fortuyn, “Liveable Holland”, Wilders) Though problems are clear, solutions differ: tension

between more democracy and more leadership/authority (elected mayor: strong figure)

Referendum rights – current situation

No referendum rights at national level and in all but one provinces (North-Holland)

Municipal level: aprox. 10% of 458 municipalities have facultative (abrogative) referendum

3 municipalities have popular initiative: Amsterdam, Nijmegen, Oosterhout

Held referendums - locally

Until recently only referendums at local level: 126, most since the 1970s:

• 94 plebsicites (often about readjusting municipal borders)

• 19 facultative referendums (first in 1995)• 1 popular initiative (March 2006)• 12 unknown

Amsterdam leads: 8 referendums since 1992

Themes of local referendums

Top four:1. Readjusting municipal borders – 712. Building plans – 213. Traffic – 84. Introduction of sub-municipalities - 6

Results

20 citizen initiated referendums: 90% “no”

Turnout: All: 59,6% Citizen-initiated: 39,4% Plebiscites on readjusting municipal borders:

71,0%

(Municipal elections 1982-2006: 63,6%)

New Amsterdam system - 1 Since October 2004 Modelled after German system:

Get initiative in local council with 1.000 signatures,

If local council rejects proposal, referendum after 25.000 signatures

Counter proposal by local council (Double Yes) Equal public funds for council and initiators Equal space for council and initiators in voter

bookletSince October 2004 Low turnout quorum (20 percent of voters) Independent Referendum Commission

New Amsterdam system - 2 Weak points:

Important topics excluded Budget, taxes, “vulnerable groups”

(refugees, prostitutes, …) No initiatives on topics which have been

dealt with by the local council for the last FOUR years!

Council can always turn down requests Vague exclusion grounds; “urgent matters”

and “decisions which are rooted in earlier decisions”

Held referendum - nationally

Until 2005, Netherlands was one of the few countries in the world which never held a national referendum

May 2005: first referendum on European Constitution 61,6% no - 63,3% turnout (EP: 39,3%) non-binding plebiscite

Quality of local referendums – 1

90 percent of municipalities: no initiative rights

If there are initiative rights:• Important topics excluded (budget, taxes,

“vulnerable groups” such as refugees, politicians’ salaries, “urgent matters”)

• TRW: ALL individual decisions such as building plans excluded

• Always turnout quorums, typically 30 - 50% > many referendums fail

Quality of local referendums – 2 Constitutiona allows no binding referendums NOR

binding initiative rights:• National law says that lower governments MUST

always be able to turn down referendum requests (“politicians decide without obligation and consultation”)

• Next to excluded topics usually phrase “or if there are any other compelling reasons not to hold a referendum…”

• Outcome always advisory

Plebiscites on readjusting municipal borders misused by local politicians to get extra legitimacy vis a vis national government

Quality of national referendum - 1 Rather typical plebiscite:

Initiated by majority of parliament who were in favour of the Constitution – next to principal arguments also hope that Constitution would be adopted with great legitimacy (MP Frans Timmermans)

Non-binding Especially Christian Democrats and Liberals were

unclear about outcome; only 2 weeks before referendum it was clear that majority would accept outcome

Despite earlier announcements to the contrary, government and parliament used public funds for yes-campaign; almost 4 million euro for “yes” versus 400.000 euro for “no”

Quality of national referendum - 2

Positive element: independent Referendum Commission: Set date Fixed precise question Wrote official summary of Constitution Distributed one million euro equally

between yes-side, no-side and neutrals

Campaign around Constitution referendum Short: government ministers 2 months, political parties less

than 4 weeks Yes-side made mistakes:

They thought they would have easy victory (supported by 85% of parliamentarians, all big NGO’s, all social partners, most media…)

Parties attacking each other (rightist government versus leftist opposition)

Arrogant tone: just vote in favour, we know what is best for Europe! “No will cause another European war” (minister of Justice) “There will be an economic crisis after a No” (minister of

Economy) “We have to leave the EU if we vote “NO” (many) “Being Christian obliges you to vote in favour” (minister of

Justice) “We need more public money to sell this Constitution just like a

company sells washing powder” (Liberal parliamentary speaker)

Local initiative rights Most municipalities and provinces have

agenda right, but little used Reasons:

1. Little known2. People don’t believe that they will be taken

seriously3. People believe they can just as well lobby with

the parties or the local mayor and eldermen; same rights

4. Representative culture = culture of complaining and taking little responsibility

National agenda right

Enters into force May 2006 40.000 sigs No proposals on taxes, budget No equal speaking right in parliament

Already now initiatives: Initiative for ban on smoking in

restaurants, bars Initiative for different policy on

National initiative right

National agenda right enters into force May 2006 40.000 sigs No proposals on taxes, budget No equal speaking right in parliament

Quality of direct democracy - conclusions

• Most referendums are instruments of the politicians, not the citizens

• Political power is basically in the hands of the politicians, not the people

• Netherlands are not a democracy• Radical? Big NRC interview with leading political

scientists who ALL claimed that “the Netherlands are not a democracy”; Belgian prime minister Verhofstadt who claims that “Belgium is a particracy, not a democracy”

Nonetheless… Direct democracy on the rise Discussion keeps coming back

First parliamentary debate: 1903 Some 8 big parliamentary debates since Five state commissions advised some form of

referendum Pim Fortuyn showed massive voter

dissatisfation; big impuls for more direct democracy

Local referendums since 1990s First national referendum in 2005 Co-founder of Referendum Platform in

parliament (Niesco Dubbelboer)

Political parties and DDAgainst Moderately in

favourFully in favour

1970s CDA, PvdA, VVD, Protestant right, others

D66 PPR

1980s CDA, VVD, PvdA, Protestant right, others

D66 PPR

1990s CDA, VVD, Protestant right

PvdA D66, Greens, SP

2000s CDA, Protestant right

VVD, Pim Fortuyn, Geert Wilders

PvdA, D66, Greens, SP, “Livable”

Current situation

Three attempts to change the Constitution within 10 years to allow binding abrogative referendum

First attempt came extremely close: at final vote, one vote too little

Government crisis The ‘new populists’: left in terms of

process, right in terms of content

Good and bad points of DD proposals versus current situation Good: more “rule of law”:

Binding decisions Binding initiative right; no vague exclusions such

as “urgent matters” or “other compelling reasons not to hold a referendum”

Bad: Only abrogative referendums (initiative to block

parliamentary laws) High approval quorum Signatures only to be set at municipal office Still important topics excluded (budget, taxes,

monarchy) On local level ALL individual decisions blocked

Prospects for further introduction

1. Use national citizen initiative to propose more direct democracy

2. National law for local referendums3. First unbinding national referendum

rights, have experience (normal majority)

4. Change constitution (very hard)

Get Liberals on board!

Thanks…

…for your attention!

arjen.nijeboer@referendumplatform.nl