Undoubtedly, Vera Bergkamp governs the House of Representatives in accordance with the best insights from contemporary human resources management. Before she became a member of parliament on behalf of D66 in 2012, she was P&O director at the Social Insurance Bank. But whether former chief of staff Bergkamp is doing parliamentary democracy a service with the external investigation into the alleged “transgressive behavior” of her predecessor Khadija Arib is open to question.
Arib (PvdA) was elected President of the House in 2016 with the explicit task of the House to streamline the Binnenhof, a bureaucratic island kingdom where hundreds of civil servants work very loyally but also rather headstrong. The parliamentarians themselves thought that more order and regularity in the parliament, which in this decade has increasingly had to face old Ukrainian scenes of internal chaos and insults, was needed.
The task was not an easy one. The House of Representatives does not have an unambiguous hierarchy. In terms of organization it resembles a department store in which shopkeepers have the highest word, but at the same time demand from the caretaker that the roof does not leak and that the Statenboterham (fried egg, Russian salad, cheese, ham and croquette) does not disappear from the menu. Those 150 individual parliamentarians and 650 employees also form an incrowd. Not only MPs come and go, their employees also swarm back and forth. Whoever was the official secretary of a large or small group the day before yesterday could be director of operations or chef of the restaurant the day after tomorrow.
In this hybrid building, the clerk is responsible for the facilities that the MPs need and the chairman determines the political process. In short, the presidency is the client and the registry is the supplier.
Judging by numerous anonymous testimonies, Arib had not always acted gently in the reorganization desired by the House of Representatives. According to the Works Council, she had behaved “presumptuously and intimidating” between 2016 and 2021. According to the complainants, there was even talk of a ‘reign of terror’ NRC in a reconstruction. There were also officials who appreciated her approach, like HP/The Time writing this week. The fact is that the House of Representatives, directed by VVD and D66, voted out sitting chairman Arib in favor of Bergkamp.
However, that was not the end of the matter for the presidency. That’s why it went wrong. After Arib was elected chairman of the Temporary Corona Committee in July, the presidium suddenly decided to order an investigation into the previous presidents. Please note: not before, but after Arib, of course, was appointed by the House itself to lead this committee.
Bergkamp’s approach is fundamentally problematic. Judging by the reconstruction in this newspaper, the Presidium ordered this investigation at the instigation of employees who did not agree with the House’s political decision to entrust Arib with a committee of inquiry. By complying with this wish for redress at the registry, the civil service has gained a grip on the political process. This coup should not have been tolerated by the presidency. Because by allowing this intervention against a decision of the House and even confirming it with his own follow-up steps, House President Bergkamp has jeopardized the political primacy of the parliament and the legislature.
By subjecting Arib to a disciplinary investigation after the House of Representatives had elected her to a pre-eminently political position, Bergkamp et al. have caused damage to parliamentary democracy, which is already in serious trouble after three Rutte cabinets. In the long run, that’s a bigger sin than a temporary reign of terror without tissues.
Hubert Smeets is a journalist and historian. He writes a column here every other week.
A version of this article also appeared in the newspaper of October 6, 2022