Today, the Netherlands is internationally known as one of the least corrupt countries. But in his dissertation, historian Ronald Kroeze (VU) shows that the development of good governance in our country was accompanied by corruption and nepotism.
Since 1993, the organization has been publishing Transparency International a corruption index every year. Countries whose citizens consider their politics to be the least corrupt top the list. The Netherlands is invariably in the top 10. The Dutch apparently consider their own country a textbook example of a non-corrupt state with good and honest administrators.
But that didn't stop Ronald Kroeze of the Free University from delving into the parliamentary archives for his PhD research at the Free University. “The development of good, democratic governance is inseparable from corruption scandals,” he says over the phone.
“By mapping out the scandals that Dutch politics experienced in that 'crucial phase' – from Thorbecke's constitutional reform in 1848 to the outbreak of the Second World War – and how they dealt with them, you can see very nicely how the views on what ' good governance' has developed.”
In his dissertation A question of political morality. Political corruption scandals and good governance in the Netherlands, 1848-1940 Kroeze investigates four historic corruption scandals. “There are small references to most of the acts of the House of Representatives. But often it has never been properly investigated what exactly was going on," says Kroeze.
Immoral Politics
Take the Billiton scandal, for example. This revolved around a concession granted in 1882 by the governor-general of the Dutch East Indies to the Billiton Maatschappij to exploit tin on the Indonesian island of the same name. If the concession was accepted, the profit of more than 70 million guilders would mainly benefit board members, supervisory directors and shareholders from the upper bourgeoisie and the nobility.
According to Kroeze, the fierce reaction to the affair shows that the political majority had become convinced that state property should not benefit a small elite. That was considered immoral. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, it was much more common for the elite to enrich themselves personally with public funds.
Or take the Limburg letter affair. In 1865 there was a great commotion when it turned out that the liberal minister G.H. During the elections of 1864, Betz from the Thorbecke cabinet had promised the Limburg voters in a letter that they would not implement a tax increase for Limburg if they voted for the liberal party.
The House of Representatives took the matter extremely seriously and Betz had to resign. The issue showed that a majority of MPs felt that the liberal ideal of self-government by a small political elite had become obsolete. Proportionate representation and party politics became more and more accepted.
First overview work
“In contrast to the countries around us, there was no historical survey of political corruption in the Netherlands. I try to fill that lack with this work,” says Kroeze. “In England and France, for example, much more systematic research into these kinds of political affairs has already been done. It is still hidden in our archives.”
When asked why the Netherlands has lagged behind, Kroeze answers:“In Dutch politics, the accusation of corruption has always been considered very serious. This is partly because the Netherlands has a very egalitarian administrative elite. The government never consisted of very distant nobility, as in France, for example.”
“The liberal elite had to constantly legitimize its position of power. Allegations of corruption were softened and nuanced. An authoritarian state such as in Germany was always lurking as soon as the fledgling liberal democracy in the Netherlands failed.”