More than two months after the election, the role of informant Ronald Plasterk was over. The four people sitting at the table acted as if they were a new government. A closed front was formed in the House of Representatives that does not implement electoral promises until it ends up on government seats.
From the beginning, it looked like a very uncomfortable situation for NSC leader Peter Omtzgut: his 20th seat was the third wheel in PVV leader Wilders' car. It is interesting to note that the disagreement in views on public finance was not the solution used by Umtsigt, but rather the rule of law.
The outgoing government rules as if nothing had happened
Meanwhile, the outgoing government, along with some newcomers, rules as if nothing had happened. In the past, there was almost no communication between outgoing ministers and Parliament. This was not necessary, as the outgoing Ministry was only concerned with shop and limited itself to urgent rather than “controversial” topics.
However, these are flexible boundary markers. In 2024, we see that many controversial decisions are made under the guise of matters that cannot be postponed – domestic and foreign policy.
Rutte overthrew his government seven months ago. The formation is expected to continue for several months. The result is that the outgoing prime minister, and the newcomers still in power, will rule the Netherlands for a year or more.
Maybe it's time to look beyond borders. The Swiss model, for example, deserves greater fame in the Netherlands.
Only seven ministers
What is striking is that Switzerland has a government consisting of only seven ministers, including a rotating ceremonial head of state. It is true that the population of Switzerland is about half that of the Netherlands, but this does not make any difference to the complexities of governance.
The government always consists of the three or four major parties. The question is not which parties can provide the ministers, but what the distribution is: 2-2-2-1, or slightly different. All major political movements, traditional as well as the right-wing Swiss People's Party, are part of the Federal Council.
Given the specific day on which ministers – members of the Federal Council – are elected by the newly elected Parliament, there is no long period of dismissal at all. Nominated ministers are presented by their party, and in the weeks leading up to the parliamentary session there is an opportunity for debate within parties and in the media.
In this way, a balanced government will be formed quickly. The principle of collegiality applies in the Federal Council: Swiss ministers do not govern the country as representatives of a party.
Often, faction leaders are not elected to the Federal Council. All members of Parliament vote on the candidates, and it happens that a very outspoken politician does not get a majority, but another candidate from the same party who is less controversial is elected. This happened, for example, with the far-right Christoph Blücher in 2007, when his party colleague Evelyn Widmer-Schlumpf was elected with the support of the Swiss Christian Democrats, Social Democrats, and Greens.
No sealed coalition agreements
Regarding the relationship between government and parliament, the Swiss system is dual in nature. There are no sealed coalition agreements. Of course there are major differences in the party's programmes, but this does not prevent the Federal Council from doing its job: governing without too many ripples in the pond, and without alienating broad sections of the population from the “trouble” in the capital, Bern.
Umtsigt was the one who brought up the possibility of forming a government outside parliament and its alleged advantages for discussion several times. A government that is not constrained by a detailed government program will be more flexible in addressing crises that are often unpredictable.
There is something to that, but the term “non-parliamentary government” does not include it. What is meant is more duality between the government and Parliament, and more influence from Parliament because the government is not bound by a coalition agreement. Perhaps the term “representative government” is better. Representative government fairs election results and contributes to dialogue between society and politics.
A trade cabinet with external experts selected as ministers also has drawbacks. Political newcomers lack experience in achieving political balance between the government and parliament. It is not the modern oligarchy that will restore trust between voters and politics.
Governance is so demanding these days that long periods of resignation must be avoided. It cannot be denied that there has been a breach of trust between broad sectors of society and the powers that be in The Hague. Trying a radically different approach, within the current constitutional framework, is worth the opportunity.
Hans Lönchoff is a former lecturer in Constitutional and Administrative Law at Utrecht University.
Zombie specialist. Friendly twitter guru. Internet buff. Organizer. Coffee trailblazer. Lifelong problem solver. Certified travel enthusiast. Alcohol geek.