What does development aid have to do with freedom of expression and demonstration? Any right-thinking person would say: nothing at all! But in the Hague reality of the minority coalition of D66, VVD and CDA, these two topics appear to be to be tied together. That’s how it is. In order to get his budget through the Senate, Minister Sjoerd Sjoerdsma (Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation, D66) had to find support from Jesse Klaver’s PRO. He demanded extra money for development aid (380 million euros) and Sjoerdsma agreed. Anything is better than seeing his departmental budget fail (that happened last time more than a century ago!)
A day after this deal was announced, leaked through Fidelity out what the price was for that D66 paid internally: against the agreements made in the coalition, Justice Minister David van Weel of the VVD may still submit his law during this cabinet period that would glorifying terrorism punishable (and which has led to restrictions on expression and freedom of demonstration in other countries). The result: Sjoerdsma’s shooting in the debate and anger and dismay in Parliament, not least at PRO, which knew nothing about this backroom deal.
Handshake
Welcome to the world of political horse-tradingIn short, a way of doing business that has gained popularity, especially in the United States under Donald Trump (see: tariff policy, paying off tax prosecution, extorting Cuba, kidnapping Venezuelan president and more). We have not yet seen it in the Netherlands as openly and shamelessly as the White House operates. A classic quid pro quoit was. And even worse: the development aid-glorification of terrorism deal could well be the case start of a trend can be. More about that later.
What distinguishes horse trading from the Dutch parliamentary system necessary compromise policyis its ugliness. The trade aspect (where profit is central) clashes with the more social idea of politics that tries to do good for society. It’s a pushover ordinary handshakeit borders on blackmail. If you want this, then I want that. Nothing human is foreign to a (power) politician, and yet it is a little appreciated way of negotiating. It erodes the reliability of the parties due to the interlinking of files that is incomprehensible to outsiders alienates voters from decision-making in The Hague. It is therefore harmful to democracy as a whole (see again: the White House).
Minority trading
The rumblings about development cooperation show how impossible it is to govern with a minority cabinet. And that is a problem that is not unique to this government. Since the middle of the last decade, several cabinets have had to seek support from the opposition to get their policies through. Previously that was mainly a problem palpable in the Senatewhere coalitions often did not have a majority. For example, Rutte-II negotiated endlessly with the parts of ‘constructive opposition’ (at the time CDA, D66, GroenLinks, ChristenUnie and SGP) for support in the Senate, which sometimes resulted in a left-wing majority and other times a right-wing majority.
And also under Schoof there was considerable haggling over education: a plan planned by the coalition of PVV, VVD, BBB and NSC mega cuts to education threatened to fail in the Senate (because: no majority). But in the end, CDA, JA21 and SGP still supported the cuts. One of the cows that was traded for this (as SGP leader Chris Stoffer revealed to his supporters): “The cuts in teacher salaries have been averted, religious education and social service remain intact and in monumental churches even additional investments are made.” Remarkable: D66 had already dropped out here.
Economics of the lever
What is particularly striking now is that the coalition itself is different from the past not as a unit at all operates to gain the support of the opposition. This means that not only the opposition must be satisfied, but also barter within the coalition. It is an open secret that the VVD prefers to do business with the right, and D66 and the CDA are closer to the left on matters such as social security and development cooperation. So a deal with PRO does pain at the VVDwho demand something in return. Here comes the economics of leverage Let’s look around the corner: the higher the (perceived) price that one of the coalition parties pays for a deal with the opposition, the greater the compensation that can be demanded.
It raises fears for the cabinet’s effectiveness in the coming months. If D66 is prepared to set aside its principles on freedom of expression and demonstration for 380 million euros, what price can the VVD ask if the cuts to social security (6.5 billion euros) will also (partly) fall under pressure from the polder and the left-wing parties in the House? Prime Minister Jetten closed the door there last week already emphatically ajar.
Of course, we in the economics editorial team don’t know much about it, but the current horse-trading seems to be the case a recipe for misery. Outstanding bills within a coalition are rarely a sign of this a stable cabinet. The price of being able to do anything at all in terms of policy is increasing day by day. It becomes a hot autumnso goes an old Hague saying. If they even make it.
How do you view this horse trading in The Hague? Part of the ‘normal’ game in The Hague? Or an inevitable consequence of the choice for a minority cabinet? And what are political principles worth if they are for sale? Let me know at [email protected]