That the impoverishment of the legislative power in the Netherlands would ever be embodied by Minister David van Weel (Justice, VVD), was unimaginable until last week. He was a bright spot in the cabinet last year. Unlike many colleagues within the (radical) right-wing coalition, Van Weel realized that power in the Netherlands does not come from a gun, but that right and order are traditionally a shared interest here.
Last week it turned out that also for Van Weel the shirt is closer than the skirt. With the recess in sight, he contributed to the fact that a new law, which makes help to illegal foreigners, was guided by the Lower House with all kinds of procedural absurdities and verbal tricks. It hardly seemed to bother him. Although decision -making did not earn a ‘beauty prize’, but the ‘result counts“Said Van Weel afterwards.
For a moment it is not about the widely discussed question whether ‘go into hiding’ (dixit PVV) is a crime that should be combated with a prison sentence if necessary, even if that is certainly not a side issue. The main thing is the fact that Van Weel did not dare to right his back at the critical moment in the Lower House or came up with clear compromises, but that he continued to talk to the parliament in a double -hearted man to gather a majority together at all costs. He apparently had an orderly legislative process. For example, the minister first said before the votes that the legal text was of little value, because he could not perform that law in the police and the judiciary due to capacity problems, and then he suddenly promised to temporarily put the disputed article of law in the refrigerator so that he could ask the Council of State for advice afterwards.
The fact that Van Weel, to this end – reduced – together with a majority of the House of Representatives – not only testifies to political opportunism. By making the legislative process subordinate to a short electoral tactic – the law had to be completed before the elections, he has proven the separation of powers, which cornerstone of our order, a poor service. In a parliamentary democracy, form and content are two sides of one and the same medal. Anyone who turns it into a ‘mud pool’, as CU party chairman Mirjam Bikker typified the working method of the government coalition, contributes to further deterioration of the legal mores in the Netherlands, partly because the end is not yet in sight.
If the Council of State can be borrowed for an after-terms advice, she will participate in the undermining. If this college refuses to launch the legislation with retroactive effect, then radically-right will argue that this must be lifted unelected advisory body. In both cases, the populists who do not recognize the ‘Trias Politica’ are at the longest end because the people speaks with one voice. Without having done anything for it, Wilders has given this double profit on a silver platter.
Once the VVD always supplied professionals for the judiciary who, even when they were in pure law and orderalways kept an eye on the necessary balance between goal and means. Minister Carel Polak (1967-1971), who is the starting point “Democracy is not for frightened people”, was the first and best liberal in that series.
If Van Weel does not return to his steps, the VVD breaks with its own tradition that the goal does not justify all means. That would not only touch Dilan Yesilgöz’s party, but the whole of the Netherlands.
Hubert Smeets is a journalist and historian. He writes a column every other week at this place.