direct democracy in the netherlands arjen nijeboer referendum platform conference “initiative for...
TRANSCRIPT
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!