In Haaksbergen, there was a vote on Wednesday not only for the municipal council, but also for an advisory referendum. The subject was tricky: asylum reception. But the question was not about whether, but how and where asylum seekers should be received according to the residents of Haaksbergen. Formally, it was “about criteria for a location for asylum reception.”
The municipal council had decided to organize this advisory referendum (cost: 100,000 euros) against the wishes of the mayor and aldermen and asked a committee of three men to draw up the questions. Kustaw Bessems, columnist of de Volkskrant and advisor in the public domain, Frank Kerckhaert, CDA politician and former mayor of Hengelo, and René Torenvlied, professor of public administration, looked at formulating the questions as carefully, precisely and understandably as possible. Neutrality was a basic condition, Torenvlied emphasized by telephone.
What was the biggest ‘danger’ you had to avoid?
“The questions should not give the wrong impression: the arrival of 129 asylum seekers is not up for discussion. This is done on the basis of the dispersal law, which the municipal council cannot change. So it had to be very clear that the residents could only say something about the way in which and the location where the asylum seekers are received in Haaksbergen. We also understood that there are residents who do not want an asylum seeker center at all. But that was not the question.”
There are three substantive questions and finally the voters can say which question is most important to them.
“It was simply not possible to cram everything the council wanted to know into one question. That would not do justice to the complexity of the questions. Hence three questions, all with a yes/no answer. That makes the result easier to interpret for the municipal council.”
All questions end with ‘what do you think?’ and the explanation states, for example, ‘which is better depends on how you view it yourself’. The voters seem to be explicitly addressed as citizens who are allowed to think along.
“Yes, the questions reflect the council’s intention: ‘You, citizens, have given us important advice that the municipal council can take into account when it has to make a decision.”
Was that the intention of the referendum? To commit citizens to a decision on a controversial subject?
“In any case, a referendum gives citizens the idea: I said something after all. Perhaps this will make a measure that is not pleasant for everyone more bearable.”
Public administration expert René Torenvlied.
Photo private archive
The explanation of the three questions always states something like ‘Haaksbergen has different views’ on this issue. Why is that so emphatic?
“We have also looked at the wording of the explanations. This is an invitation to give your own opinion. With this wording we hope to free the voter’s mind to do so.”
In addition to a separate explanation, each question also has a box under the heading ‘what does your vote mean?’ Why was that done?
“That can help citizens realize that the municipal council is making a decision on this issue. The three of us have thought about this for a long time, because you want to avoid directing the voters. When explaining the question of whether the shelter should be set up at one or two locations, it is stated that the government pays all costs if it is one shelter, while the municipality incurs additional costs if two locations are chosen.”
Friday was the outcome of the referendum announced. The turnout threshold of 40 percent was easily met: 10,575 of the 19,788 eligible voters answered the questions about the criteria for asylum reception. Result: a small majority would prefer shelter in one location, not in a place where housing is planned in the future and in a busy place rather than outside the built-up center. A majority of voters considered the latter criterion to be the most important. “The municipal council can soon take this into account when it is debated,” says Torenvlied.
There is 5 percentage points between the number of votes cast for the municipal council (58.2 percent) and that for the referendum (53 percent). What does that tell you?
“Let me first say that the vast majority who voted for the municipal council also completed the referendum. As for the non-voters: you can only speculate about their motives. Perhaps they did not want asylum seekers in the municipality at all and not voting is an expression of protest. It may also be that they do not think a referendum is an appropriate instrument for an issue like this. Or that they simply do not find the subject important enough to vote on separately: ‘Leave it to the council’.”
