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
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 (NorthHolland)
 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.
2.
3.
4.
Readjusting municipal borders – 71
Building plans – 21
Traffic – 8
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 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 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 DD
Against
Moderately in
favour
Fully in favour
1970s
CDA, PvdA,
VVD,
Protestant
right, others
D66
PPR
1980s
CDA, VVD,
PvdA,
Protestant
right, others
D66
PPR
1990s
CDA, VVD,
PvdA
Protestant right
D66, Greens,
SP
2000s
CDA,
VVD, Pim
Protestant right 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!
arjen.nijeboer@referendumplatform.nl