When the results of Wednesday’s House of Representatives elections are known, the cabinet formation will begin. This is a political process, but it is important that the initial phase is careful and transparent.
H It is to be hoped that the formations after the two previous House of Representatives elections have not set a trend. The formation in 2017 (Rutte-III) was already of record length (225 days) and that of 2021 (Rutte-IV) exceeded that again: 299 days.
Could that have something to do with the change in the formation procedure that was implemented in 2012? In that year, parliament decided that the head of state (the king) no longer directs this extremely important political process of power formation (which parties will form the government) and policy development (what are the main lines of policy for the next four years).
Pattern of formations
That 2012 decision is the provisional end of a tradition that started in 1815, the start of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Or rather, we should place the starting point for cabinet formations in the year 1848. Before that time, the Netherlands had no cabinets and the king appointed and dismissed his ministers, literally his servants, at his pleasure.
In 1848, King William II finally agreed to the liberal constitution (Thorbecke), which contains the famous provision that is still in force in our constitution that the king is inviolable and the ministers are responsible. William II sought a formateur (Schimmelpenninck) who is considered the first Prime Minister of the Netherlands. And this laid the foundation for cabinet formations into the current century.
Developments
Two developments emerge in the seventy formations we have known since then. The first is that the number of people directly involved in a cabinet formation is increasing. If we limit ourselves to the main characters, then since 1848 it was the king and a formateur requested by him, later by her; Since 1951, this pair has been expanded with an informateur and in 1989 a special informateur was added: the pre-informer that we know today as a scout.
The second development is that parliament is demanding and gaining more and more influence on cabinet formation. For example, it has only been customary since 1922 for a cabinet to tender its resignation on the eve of elections; Previously, it was not unusual for a sitting cabinet to wait for the election results to determine whether it could continue or should resign.
Another important moment: the Colijn-V cabinet was formed outside parliament in 1939 and fell after just two days due to a motion of censure, which ‘established’ the rule that a cabinet must have the confidence of the House of Representatives. There are many examples of this increasing influence of parliament; This development can be briefly referred to as the ‘parliamentarization’ of the cabinet formation.
Formation under the direction of parliament
With the loss of the central director (the king), control fell to the House of Representatives. That in itself is difficult: how does a body with political contradictions manage? Or how do 150 people take over control from 1 person?
The more important question is what directing actually entails. Since 2012, cabinet formations have been evaluated under the direction of the House of Representatives by a committee of constitutional law and political science professors. In their latest report they note that MPs’ opinions on management vary widely and that a broad parliamentary debate on this subject is desirable. It seems like wise advice to me.
Role of the scout
A major problem occurs in the important first phase of a cabinet formation, a phase that can determine which cabinet is ultimately formed. It is the exploration phase in which the so-called scout is expected to prepare the debate that the newly elected House will hold on three topics: the interpretation of the election results, which coalitions are possible and who should be charged with what task. information assignment.
It is evident that this must be done carefully. But the past three formation processes are not encouraging on this point. For example, in 2012, the day following the elections – the new House had not yet been sworn in – at the proposal of the VVD party leader, also outgoing Prime Minister (Rutte), Minister Kamp (VVD) was invited to a meeting of elected party leaders led by Chamber Chairman Verbeet appointed scout.
Instead of preparing for the House debate, he in fact immediately started the information phase and advised the House to appoint himself and PvdA prominent Wouter Bos as informateurs. Because VVD and PvdA together had a majority, the newly elected House of Representatives factions had little choice but to adopt these proposals.
We also saw a similar pattern in 2021 when Jorritsma (VVD) and Ollongren (D66) were appointed as scouts.
Let the initial phase be transparent
In fact, what we have seen in the past three formations since 2012 is that the parliamentarization of the formation threatens to degenerate into (party) politicization.
It is hoped that this trend will be broken after the elections on November 22. Of course, forming a cabinet is a political process (power and policy), but the initial phase should be careful and transparent.
Fortunately, the House of Representatives has thought about this exploratory phase in particular and recently decided to no longer appoint two (as in 2021), but one scout who has distance from daily politics. There was no agreement about who that should be. The range of options is wide. This includes the vice-president of the Council of State, a minister of state, the chairman of the Social-Economic Council (SER), the chairman of one of the Planning Bureaus or a widely respected professor of Political Science or Constitutional Law. It is also conceivable that a (former) chairman of the House of Representatives will take on that role.
There are even calls to appeal to the king again, especially in that initial phase of the formation; an example of ‘deparliamentarisation’.
Whatever choice is made, it is important that the House of Representatives gives the scout a clear assignment and also ensures that she or he adheres to it. This assignment should state that the most objective possible analysis is made of the results of the elections and that the House of Representatives gains insight into which parties do and which do not want to take government responsibility together.
The House of Representatives can then make a responsible decision as to who will investigate which coalition option as an informant in the next phase. In that information phase, (party) politicization can fully develop.
Peter Polhuis from Leeuwarden is a political scientist/administration expert and former formateur at local level.