Direct democracy in the Netherlands

1. Direct democracy in the Netherlands Arjen Nijeboer Referendum Platform www.referendumplatform.nl Conference “Initiative for Europe – A citizen’s agenda”, Brussels, 23-24 March 2006

2. 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.

3. 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)

4. 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

5. 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

6. Themes of local referendums Top four: • Readjusting municipal borders – 71 • Building plans – 21 • Traffic – 8 • Introduction of sub-municipalities - 6

7. 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%)

8. 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

9. 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”

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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”

14. 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

15. 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)

16. Local initiative rights • Most municipalities and provinces have agenda right, but little used • Reasons: • Little known • People don’t believe that they will be taken seriously • People believe they can just as well lobby with the parties or the local mayor and eldermen; same rights • Representative culture = culture of complaining and taking little responsibility

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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”

20. 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)

21. Political parties and DD

22. 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

23. 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

24. Prospects for further introduction • Use national citizen initiative to propose more direct democracy • National law for local referendums • First unbinding national referendum rights, have experience (normal majority) • Change constitution (very hard) Get Liberals on board!

25. Thanks… …for your attention! arjen.nijeboer@referendumplatform.nl