As Europe is searching a way out of the quicksand of the Euro crisis, one of the Euro sceptic countries of the past, who voted NO against the European constitution in 2006, is becoming more and more sceptical once again in the wake of upcoming elections in September.
I am referring, of course, to my home country, the Netherlands. A country with a mind of its own, but without the politicians to match.
The Netherlands is a country of dialogue and coalition. It is the country that invented the so-called "Polder model" where social partners as employers, employees (unions) and ministers come to agreements on social economic subjects to reach an optimal situation for all involved, not just for the best negotiators.
It is also the country with currently 13 political parties and fractions in Parliament, all without the majority of votes, which implies that they have to form coalitions to form a majority of votes.
Forming coalitions and accepting that all parties have to grant political discounts to reach agreement is in our vains, politicians not only accept this model, they anticipate coalition discussions by formulating their political goals in a way that appeals to others. Instead of boldly stating the beliefs and ideology of the political movement, parties create programs that are very much alike, with the key subjects already tuned towards prospective coalition partners.
Obviously there are differences between parties, there are left wing parties, middle parties and right wing parties, but up to about 10 years ago, there were three major political movements: the socialist democrates (PvdA), the christian democrats (CDA) and the liberal parties (VVD / D66). The number of parties was around 8 to 10, but it only took 2 parties to form a majority of votes in the Dutch Parliament, as the mainstream parties each had between 25 and 50 votes in the 150 votes Parliament, sometimes even more than that.
Nowadays, the largest party represents 31 votes and the last coalition - after the collapse of the minority cabinet with support from right wing (?) party PVV - took five parties to come to an agreement on the Dutch budget for 2013 in the forefront of the new elections of September 12th. Imagine having to negotiate with five parties on a four year program and every party needs to come out of the negotiations with something to show for to their voters. Obviously this is not possible when one is trying to achieve a well structured, thought through and comprehensive four year (coalition) agreement. Instead, the outcome of coalition talks will be not much more than a patchwork of inarticulate measures that have to keep all parties visible for their voters, but will hardly be an optimal mix of measures that will help the country forward. All potential progress sacrificed on the coalition talks table, how ironic.
So the logical question is how to do this differently? Limit the number of political parties in the Parliament by increasing the electoral threshold? It is a pragmatic solution, but having new and fresh parties in Parliament like the successful but small Animal Party is one of the charms of the Dutch system. And what would the electoral threshold bring? More 'middle' parties hence less profile.
No, my solution is much more out of the box. It all starts with the one stable factor in Dutch politics, a highly influential yet unknown group that funny enough is never taken into account by the voting public: the executive government officials / civil servants in the respective ministries. Why not have the Chief civil servants (the secretary-generals with their advisors) create comprehensive programs for the country before the election in multiple scenarios for the politicians to adopt. That way the populist choices (hypes) and 'flexible' governing from politicians in power will not manifest itself. The political parties in the coalition can choose one or more of the scenarios to agree to and make that the center of their campaign. Party profile will then have to come from the politicians themselves, which is really no different than it is today as people vote for people, not programs.
In coalition talks, parties can look for other parties that back the same or similar programs to form the final coalition agreement. Discussions between the coalition parties can then be about people for the different posts in the administration and not not about changing / killing the coherence of the program. Again, that is what the parties can really influence and prepare for. They can be transparent about this before election day and fight their opponents with top candidates for the administration or for the spot of PM.
It will not be the end of the Dutch coalition model, but it can create higher quality programs and it can improve the fit between what people vote for and why they vote for it, hence the politicians.
People will no longer feel sold out after the coalition talks are over and the squandered ideals are made public, hence the extremes will have difficulty of staying attractive. This system would benefit the middle parties, who - ironically - will be the first to challenge it (for the mere reason that is is too different from what they know).
Like in Europe, the Dutch politicians will proof to bend easily under pressure, so a fresh idea like this one will most probably remain an idea. Simple truth is that we live in a time where reforms are not accepted by the sitting powers who do not dear to embrace change as that might cost them their position. They all say that they are honored to serve their country, where in fact they are serving themselves.
In the end the voters will recognize this, be fed up and vote for the extreme parties with the best profile... to punish the behavior of the sitting administration.
In conclusion: authentic profiles and clear and stable programs that are known well in advance of elections, work far better than pragmatic hype surfing and months of bargaining for positions at the expense of the coherence of the coalition program: much better for the country, for the people and for the politicians.
We'll know in two months time...
No comments:
Post a Comment