On September 12, we will go to the polls for the sixth time in ten years. Since 1998, no cabinet has served its full four-year mandate. Is that a sign that there is something wrong with our democracy that has been so taken for granted? Rather, it is an indication that the functioning of our democracy is controversial. But that has never been different.
Soon we will elect another 150 people's representatives to form a new parliament. A parliament controls the executive branch, the government, and basically has the last word on everything. If there is no majority in parliament for a measure, it will not happen. Elections and government formation are a little different in every country, but the principle is almost sacred. Countries with a powerfully functioning parliamentary democracy are proud of this. They are often not afraid to severely reprimand undemocratic countries.
After the fall of communism in 1989, Eastern Europe also democratized at a rapid pace. Since then, there has been no credible ideological rival to parliamentary democracy. Many countries have left behind their history of oppression. The path to the Democratic Utopia, once initiated with the French Revolution, is nearly complete. The history of democracy seems to be a wonderful success story. But that is not it. Democracy 'does' not belong to Europe or the Netherlands at all.
On the brink of death
In the last century, democracy has been scribbled on by trial and error and a lot of experimentation has been done. At many times, democracy was on the brink of death. Viewed in this way, it is more of a miracle than a matter of course that we will soon be allowed to go to the polls again.
After the First World War, the three largest European monarchies, Tsarist Russia, Austria-Hungary and the German Empire, had been overthrown by internal revolutions. With the exception of communist Russia, these countries and the many new republics into which they had fallen apart were given a democratic constitution. Democracy in all European states seemed the only guarantee that there would be no new war.
But that democracy soon became an 'abandoned temple', as historian Mark Mazower puts it in his book Dark Continent. The European twentieth century aptly worded. During the interwar period it became clear to many Europeans that the slow, toothless parliamentary democracy was powerless against the deep economic crisis and the other difficulties of the time.
Alternatives to parliamentary democracy also beckoned in the Netherlands. With admiration, politicians and citizens in our crisis-plagued country looked at the communist Soviet Union. Due to (forced) collectivization and Stalin's five-year plans, unemployment no longer existed and the poverty-stricken country industrialized rapidly. Italy, where the fascist dictator Benito Mussolini had been in power since 1922 and democracy had been abolished, had a similar magical attraction.
Anti-democratic flirtation
Anti-democratic movements such as the NSB gained a lot of support, but the Netherlands has always remained a democratic state until the German occupation in 1940. Yet in the Netherlands there have been flirtations at a high level with anti-democratic movements. It is known that Hendrikus Colijn, Prime Minister of the Netherlands between 1933 and 1939, was not a big fan of democracy.
Colijn visited Mussolini's Italy in 1928. After his return he wrote in the party newspaper of his Anti-Revolutionary Party (ARP):“The individualist-liberalist system has had its day. There is every reason to look for alternatives.” The emancipation of the working class and the emerging socialism worried Colijn. “If fascism works, Mussolini has found a genius alternative (to the class struggle).”
Although the ARP has always adhered to the democratic rules of the game, many men at the top, including Colijn, were clearly open to alternatives. During the formation of a crisis cabinet in 1939, Colijn said privately to his intended minister of foreign affairs De Graeff that if the cabinet fell, the way would be clear for National Socialism. “If properly managed, it could be a try,” he added.
'Principles that are not ours'
In June 1940, so after the German army occupied the Netherlands, Colijn published a brochure entitled 'On the border of two worlds'. In it he once again shows his aversion to democracy and he expresses his hope that the occupation will be the beginning of a new era. Because Colijn has already been prime minister for a year, he could be more open than ever about his thoughts.
In public, Colijn always neatly distanced himself from National Socialism. He didn't like the violent nature of it or the anti-Semitism. But according to Colijn, the last hour had come for democracy. In his brochure he writes that democracy was 'dead sick and permanently bankrupt'. "In general, modern democracy was supported by principles that are not ours."
'On the border of two worlds' made Colijn one of the most controversial Dutch statesmen in recent history. Many politicians distanced themselves from the brochure. But that was more because he seemed to accept the German occupation than because of his views on democracy.
Worst form of government
Today, no politician questions democratic principles. Even Geert Wilders, who is sometimes fiercely anti-political, is never anti-democratic. In Europe, only marginal extreme right-wing or left-wing parties are still proposing to abolish democracy. Since the horrors of the Second World War, democratic awareness has become so strong that a politician who questions democracy is not taken seriously.
Democracy has many variants. Just take the difference in which we form a government in the Netherlands and how the presidential elections in America go. No democratic variant is perfect or undisputed. In the Netherlands this is evident from the fact that we have had to go to the polls more and more in recent years. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill put it this way shortly after the Second World War:
“Many forms of government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and evil. No one is claiming that democracy is perfect or the most sensible. In fact, it has been argued that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
Now Churchill was never known as a great Democrat and this statement must be seen against the background of the war, but in essence he may have been right. Democracy does not always work optimally and must therefore be regularly adapted to the wishes of the zeitgeist, but something better is simply not available. In exchange for a stable society, we just make do with it.
Read more about our (controversial) democracy on Kennislink en Wetenschap24:
- File Elections (Knowledge Link File)
- Peat fire in parliamentary democracy (Kennislink article)
- Gap in education level poses a threat to democracy (Kennislink article)
- Is democracy mathematically impossible? (Knowledge Link Article)
- The politician no longer likes politics (Knowledge link article)
- The angry democracy (How? So! radio)
- Fear of the people (Science24)