UNION INTERPARLEMENTAIRE
INTER-PARLIAMENTARY UNION
Association of Secretaries General of Parliaments
COMMUNICATION
from
Mrs. Jacqueline BIESHEUVEL-VERMEIJDEN
Secretary General of the House of Representatives of the States General of the
Netherlands
on
“The formation of government in the Netherlands in 2012”
March 2015
The forming of a new government in the wake of parliamentary elections is always an
important and far-reaching event in the operation of parliamentary democracy.
In the Netherlands, this process is often anything but simple. Because of the proportional
representation electoral system used for Dutch parliamentary elections, many different
parties are represented in parliament. This means that no individual party has an overall
majority and a coalition government always needs to be formed following elections.
In this context, the forming of a government in the Netherlands is a complex process of
negotiation that has even been known to last longer than six months. Intensive political
negotiations take place in order to form a government that has the support of a majority in
parliament.
But who makes the decisions in this process of negotiation and what form does the process
of forming a government take? In the Netherlands, neither the Constitution nor the law
stipulate the procedure to be followed in this. However, a standard procedure has gradually
emerged over the years that is consistently applied in the formation of a new government.
When the last Dutch Cabinet was formed in 2012, there was an interesting new
development in this. I will return to that later.
The Netherlands has been a constitutional monarchy since 1814. Initially, the formation of
the government was exclusively in the power of the King. However, from 1848 onwards, as
the parliamentary system developed it became standard practice for the King increasingly to
take account of the majority views within parliament when forming a new government after
elections. From that date, the King instructed a skilled negotiator, known as a formateur, to
negotiate the formation of a majority government in consultation with the political leaders
in the parliament. As a result of this, a standard practice for forming a government gradually
emerged. In it, the King started by consulting the political leaders, the leaders of the
parliamentary groups in the House of Representatives. Based on their advice, the King then
appointed one or several informateurs or formateurs to conduct the negotiations on the
formation of a new government in consultation with the parliamentary group leaders. These
negotiations usually involve the future governing parliamentary groups entering into a
detailed coalition agreement.
The process of forming a government therefore underwent a gradual process of transition,
as parliament itself slowly gained more and more influence. This happened in many
European countries over the course of the twentieth century. In the Netherlands however,
the King remained involved in the formation of government as an impartial supervisor of the
process, over and above the parties.
In the lead-up to the elections of 2012, the Dutch House of Representatives decided to make
some important changes to the existing practice for forming a government. In the spring of
2012, it added a new provision to its Rules of Procedure (Reglement van Orde). This new
provision stipulates that, following elections, the House of Representatives meets in its new
configuration to consult on the appointment of informateurs or formateurs tasked with
forming a new government.
In two key respects, this new rule marks an important change in the process of forming a
government in the Netherlands. The first of these is that the House's Rules of Procedure now
regulate an important aspect of this process (the appointment of informateurs/formateurs
by the House). For the first time ever, the formation of the Dutch Cabinet is enshrined in
regulations. Secondly, the King is no longer involved in the appointments. As a result, the
power of controlling the process of forming a government has shifted still further towards
parliament itself.
Shortly after the revision of the Rules of Procedure, in September 2012, there were early
parliamentary elections in the Netherlands. After these elections, the new procedure was
applied for the very first time. For the first time ever in Dutch parliamentary history, the
House of Representatives itself took control of the formation of government, the
appointment of informateurs and a formateur and the determination of their brief. There
was initially some scepticism as to whether this new procedure would prove successful.
Would the formation of a Cabinet without the King's involvement end in chaos? In fact,
some of the parties would have preferred to see the old practice continue. As it turned out,
the formation of the Cabinet in 2012 actually ran in a relatively orderly and smooth fashion,
by Dutch standards.
After its completion, the House of Representatives commissioned an evaluation conducted
by a committee of external experts. This evaluation took a closer look at several aspects of
the new procedure.
1. A key aspect in the evaluation was the role played in the procedure by the President of
the House of Representatives. In forming the Cabinet, the President of the House, assisted
by the Secretary General, played a key role as process coordinator. This was a new role for
the President. A great deal of work was done in order to prepare for this new task. On the
day following the elections, the President convened a meeting of the leaders of the
parliamentary groups to discuss how best to initiate the formation process. The leader of the
largest parliamentary group came forward with the suggestion of introducing an exploratory
process in order to ensure that effective preparations were made for the first debate in the
House on the appointment of the informateurs/formateurs. As the process continued, the
President, together with the Secretary General, systematically discussed each subsequent
step in the formation process with the leaders of the parliamentary groups. Ultimately, these
were the people who would need to take the political decisions.
It is partly thanks to the coordinating role played by the President that the formation of the
Cabinet of 2012 went so smoothly. Before every debate in the House, it was clear which
conclusions the Parliamentary group leaders had reached and which decision, supported by
a parliamentary majority, could be put before the House. The evaluation recommended that
this new practice be applied on subsequent occasions.
2. Another key aspect of the evaluation was the role played by the King in the new process.
In the formation of the Cabinet of 2012, it was the first time that the King was actually on
the sidelines. The King was notified on progress in the formation of a new government on
only a few occasions. The evaluation concluded that the role of the King in the new
procedure for forming a government deserves closer attention. According to the Dutch
Constitution, the King is part of the government and is the Head of State. As such, it is fully
justified that he should be informed about progress made in the formation of the Cabinet at
every phase. The committee of external experts felt that this did not happen to a sufficient
extent in 2012. In any subsequent Cabinet formation, the committee concluded that the
King's right to be informed should play a greater role in the process.
3. A third key aspect of the evaluation concerned the question of whether the Cabinet
formation has become more open and transparent and more democratic as a result of these
changes. This had been one of the key arguments put forward by those in favour of the
change to the regulations. The evaluation concluded that the new procedure involving a
debate in the House, in which decisions on the formation of the government were taken,
does make some contribution towards openness and transparency. However, the formation
of a government in the Netherlands, as elsewhere in the world, is primarily a political
process of negotiation that benefits from a degree of confidentiality. Ultimately, it is easier –
or less embarrassing – to make compromises in private than in the full glare of daylight.
4. Numerous other points also emerged from the evaluation. These involved, for example,
the administrative support for the negotiators, the publication of documents, as well as the
role of the Senate in forming the Cabinet.
The new procedure has now been successfully applied. However, that offers no guarantees
for the future. Forming a government in the Netherlands is and will remain a complex
process of negotiation that cannot be directed along the right path simply by introducing a
new rule. It will be interesting to see how effective the new procedure proves to be next
time.