Direct democracy in the Netherlands Arjen Nijeboer Referendum Platform Conference “Initiative for Europe – A citizen’s agenda”, Brussels, 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 - society Traditional 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 – 71 2.Building plans – 21 3.Traffic – 8 4.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 : 63,6%)

New Amsterdam system - 1  Since October 2004  Modelled after German system: Get initiative in local council with signatures, If local council rejects proposal, referendum after 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 % > 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 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 known 2.People don’t believe that they will be taken seriously 3.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 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 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 DD AgainstModerately in favour Fully in favour 1970sCDA, PvdA, VVD, Protestant right, others D66PPR 1980sCDA, VVD, PvdA, Protestant right, others D66PPR 1990sCDA, VVD, Protestant right PvdAD66, Greens, SP 2000sCDA, 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 referendums 3.First unbinding national referendum rights, have experience (normal majority) 4.Change constitution (very hard) Get Liberals on board!

Thanks… …for your attention!