Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T21:20:19.264Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reforming the Electoral System of the Dutch Lower House of Parliament: An Unsuccessful Story

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Gert-Jan Leenknegt  and
Gerhard van der Schyff

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Which element of democracy is to prevail in the composition of parliament: an accurate reflection of minorities and their ideas, or a strong bond between citizens and their representatives? The answer, it seems, is to be determined to a large extent by the national political culture. The political history of the Netherlands makes strict proportionality the highest principle in this regard. Over the years, various attempts at fundamental electoral reform have been left stranded. It seems that the current system of proportional representation will remain intact in the Netherlands in spite of periodic attempts at change, as it probably best reflects the Dutch culture's longing for maximum inclusiveness.

Type
Articles
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 8 , Issue 12 , 01 December 2007 , pp. 1133 - 1146
Copyright
Copyright © 2007 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Section 53(1): The members of both Chambers shall be elected by proportional representation within the limits to be laid down by Act of Parliament.Google Scholar

2 Rudy B. Andeweg and Galen A. Irwin, Governance and Politics of the Netherlands 70-71 (2002); M.C. Burkens, H.R.B.M. Kummeling, B.P. Vermeulen, and R.J.G.M. Widdershoven, Beginselen van de Democratische Rechtsstaat 6th ed. 243-245. (2006).Google Scholar

3 Paul P.T. Bovend'Eert and Henk R.B.M. Kummeling, Het Nederlandse Parlement 10th ed. 83-90 (2004); van Schagen, Jan A. and Kummeling, Henk R.B.M., The Proposals for Electoral Reform in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, in Constitutionalism, Universalism and Democracy. The Dutch Contribution to the Fifth World Congress of the International Association of Constitutional Law, 1-29 (D.J. Elzinga, F. Goudappel and H.R.B.M. Kummeling eds., 1999); P.P.T. Bovend'Eert, Naar een Gemengd Kiesstelsel: Versterking van de Parlementaire Democratie, 53 Ars Aequi 78 (2004); J.A. van Schagen, Naar een Nieuw Kiesstelsel, 51 Ars Aequi 5 (2002) for an overview.Google Scholar

4 On this chamber see, A. Postma and B.J. Bonenkamp, Aan deze Zijde van het Binnenhof (1990).Google Scholar

5 Dennis C. Mueller, Constitutional Democracy 132 (1996); Jan A. van Schagen, Electoral Systems and Representative Government 27 (2000); Lijphart, Arend, The Dutch Electoral System in Comparative Perspective: Extreme Proportional Representation, Multipartism and the Failure of Electoral Reform, 14 Netherlands Journal of Sociology 115-133 (1978); Rudy B. Andeweg and Galen A. Irwin, Governance and Politics of the Netherlands 77, 78 (2002).Google Scholar

6 Parties can list different candidates for each of these districts; they may also choose not to take part in the national elections in all districts, in which case they lose potential voters.Google Scholar

7 Elections Act, sections P15-P18.Google Scholar

8 Bovend'Eert and Kummeling (note 3), 351. This becomes quite clear when it is considered that voters have no direct influence on the formation of a coalition after an election. As no political party has scored an absolute majority in parliament since 1917, party elites are very important in forming governments.Google Scholar

9 Rudy B. Andeweg and Galen A. Irwin, Governance and Politics of the Netherlands 80-85 (2002).Google Scholar

10 Bovend'Eert and Kummeling (note 3), 67, 84; Burkens et al. (note 2), 244.Google Scholar

11 van Schagen, (note 5), 39.Google Scholar

12 Enid Lakeman, How Democracies Vote. A Study of Electoral Systems 203-206 (1974).Google Scholar

13 Anne Bos, Ron de Jong and Jasper Loots, Een Sprong in het Duister. De Overgang van het Absolute Meerderheidsstelsel naar het Stelsel van Evenredige Vertegenwoordiging in 1918 13-14 (2005).Google Scholar

14 Initially, the right to vote was limited to men, but in 1919 it was granted to women as well.Google Scholar

15 Burkens et al. (note 2), 200.Google Scholar

16 These statistics are available at: www.parlement.com, under ‘Tweede Kamer’ and ‘verkiezingen 1918-2006’ (last accessed 28 March 2007).Google Scholar

17 Arend Lijphart and Bernard Grofman, Choosing an Electoral System. Issues and Alternatives 32-33 (1984).Google Scholar

18 Bovend'Eert and Kummeling (note 3), 388-391. We should note that forming a Belgian cabinet has now proven to be at least equally difficult, and much more complex.Google Scholar

19 J. Bosmans, Staatkundige Vormgeving in Nederland: De Tijd na 1940 vol. II 108-113 (1999Google Scholar

20 Burkens, et al. (note 2), 246.Google Scholar

21 Burkens, et al. (note 2), 261-265.Google Scholar

22 Andeweg, R.B., Proeve van een Vernieuwd Kiesstelsel, 78 Nederlands Juristenblad 1542-1547 (2003); D.J. Elzinga, Het Nederlandse Kiesrecht 21-24 (1997); van Schagen (note 5), 39.Google Scholar

23 Explanatory Report, Parliamentary Papers II 2004/2005, 29 986, no. 3, para. 2.4.Google Scholar

24 The government based its argument on Arend Lijphart, Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries (1999).Google Scholar

25 Although it could probably be argued that voter turnout was still quite high in relation to other democracies, it was nonetheless felt that a downward trend was to be identified that had to be halted or reversed before it went too far. Rudy B. Andeweg and Galen A. Irwin, Governance and Politics of the Netherlands 74, 75 (2002).Google Scholar

26 See Electoral Systems in Europe 18-19 (Brussels: European Centre for Parliamentary Research and Documentation, Simon McGee ed., 2000).Google Scholar

27 The government based its argument on Mixed-member Electoral Systems: The Best of Both Worlds? (Matthew Soberg Shugart and Martin P. Wattenberg eds., 2003).Google Scholar

28 E.g. Austria, Germany, Sweden, Italy, Denmark, New Zealand and Scotland.Google Scholar

29 Electoral Reform Bill, Parliamentary Papers II 2004/2005, 29 986, no. 2, section E1.Google Scholar

30 Id., para. 2.5.Google Scholar

31 Id., section P1.Google Scholar

32 Id., section P1c.Google Scholar

33 van Schagen (note 5), 31.Google Scholar

34 Council of State Report, Parliamentary Papers II 2004/2005, 29 986, no. 5, para. 4.Google Scholar

35 Id., para. 4a.Google Scholar

36 Notice of Withdrawal, Parliamentary Papers II, 2005/2006, 29 986, no. 6.Google Scholar

37 Report of the Cals/Donner Commission, Den Haag: Government Publication, 1971.Google Scholar

38 Report of the De Koning Commission, Parliamentary Papers II 1992/1993, 21 427, no. 36-37.Google Scholar

39 Burgerforum Kiesstelsel, Met één Stem Meer Keus, Advies van het Burgerforum Kiesstelsel (2006). Available in English at: www.burgerforumkiesstelsel.nl (last accessed 20 November 2007).Google Scholar

40 Coalition Pact between the lower house factions of the CDA, PvdA, and ChristenUnie, Den Haag, 27 February 2007, available at: www.parlement.com, under ‘regeringsbeleid’ and ‘regeerakkoord’ (last accessed on 28 March 2007).Google Scholar

41 E.g., on 18 May 1999 (known as the Nacht van Wiegel) the upper house rejected a revision bill, which would have introduced the corrective referendum as part of the legislative procedure for acts of parliament.Google Scholar

42 As was the case in 1795 (the Batavian Revolution), 1840–48 (the Revolutionary years), 1917 (the Pacification).Google Scholar