So much for Dick Schoof. Then Rob Jetten follows. The new Prime Minister who aspires to put an end to the immature politics of the last five years. Who wants to put a stop to administrative decay.
It started with the motion of censure against Mark Rutte in the spring of 2021. The VVD Prime Minister ran into difficulties within his own circle. Two lengthy formations and weak cabinets followed that fell far too quickly.
Political inability and right-wing radical resentment mixed with media that lost their way. If there was a policy dilemma, there was always a channel with an opinion panel that asked what ‘the voter’ thought about it down to the last decimal point. Everything became political populism and there was hardly a politician in The Hague who dared to take a risk.
Absurdities became normal. According to coalition party BBB, there was no nitrogen problem. So her approach was to stick to previously agreed policies, sometimes still enforced by the courts slow down or block. And according to coalition party PVV, the country would no longer accept asylum seekers after four years of PVV policy. That is why the financial forecast included billions in cuts: all costs for asylum reception had been scrapped.
The kind of fantasy that satisfied its own supporters while the country sank further into the mud. The ruins of eleven months of Sheaf.
Different politics
And now there is Jetten. Different politics. At the presentation of the coalition agreement, he without batting an eyelid defended unpopular interventions in healthcare and social security. He immediately adopted the pose of a prime minister who stands above the parties. “I will wholeheartedly defend plans that were not in the D66 program.”
Also not to be missed, a little earlier, was informant Rianne Letschert at the presentation of her final report. She had no experience in The Hague when she started as an informant at the end of last year, but received good reviews. She wants ministers, she said, who adopt “a restrained and serving role” in dialogue with society and the House.
And coalition MPs can no longer act as if they have a monopoly on the truth. From them, she writes, “a practice of broad cooperation can be expected in daily parliamentary work.”
Language that emphasizes that the uncertainty for this coalition remains high. The formation went quickly and looked stable. But it produces a minority coalition that looks nothing like what key parties advocated in the campaign.
D66 election manifesto, foreword: “While an unstable world affects us all [raakt]party politics too often wins over the national interest.” VVD election programme, first sentence: “Since its founding, the VVD has stood for the importance of a strong and stable liberal democracy.” CDA leader Henri Bontenbal in almost every debate: “We want a stable cabinet.” GL-PvdA, first response after the fall of the Schoof cabinet: I would like “a stable coalition”. And JA21, election manifestolikes “more stable government policy”.
In this respect, it is no different, these coalition parties, especially VVD and D66, have also placed their own profile above the national interest.
A weakness of formations is often that negotiators, in their self-chosen isolation, construct political ideals that do not appear to exist in reality. The idea of an extra-parliamentary cabinet dominated the 2024 formation. Nothing came of it. In 2021-22 the idea of a new management culture. Idem.
After the rapid formation of 2012, Rutte and Diederik Samsom (PvdA) emphasized the importance of political fairness: “Giving each other something.” That sounded nice, Letschert repeated the term for the new coalition on Friday, but the fact is that after Rutte II (2012-2017) the concept entered political history not as an achievement but as a reproach (especially to Samsom).
The Hague has not been a place that values ambition or good intentions for some time now. Pleas for a healthier political culture are sympathetic and even necessary – but not necessarily effective.
Return of the polder culture
Interestingly, the coalition also wants a return of polder culture. Prime ministers who are weak often need this.
In principle, every minister in the Jetten cabinet faces a majority in Parliament. But a minister who can boast of an agreement with civil society organizations suddenly finds himself a lot stronger in the face of that majority.
Letschert therefore advises ministers in her report to “invite fellow authorities, social organizations and advisory boards to the table at an early stage and to take their advice seriously.”
It is the return of a social dialogue that has lost prestige in recent years. Especially with liberal and conservative parties that prefer political primacy: a government that does not consult with society but sets society standards.
This social dialogue is in line with the fundamental change that is taking shape under Jetten’s minority coalition. His main goal – cooperation with the opposition – is at odds with a working method that every cabinet has used since 1982. That year, the CDA and VVD, led by Ruud Lubbers (CDA), agreed on a coalition agreement with heavy economic restructuring, to which the coalition factions committed themselves in advance. It took the tension out of sensitive parliamentary debates: it was already clear in advance that the coalition supported every cabinet plan. Not that there were no conflicts in the coalition. But these were no longer discussed in Parliament: they were settled in closed consultations.
Henri Bontenbal (CDA) after the presentation of the coalition agreement in Nieuwspoort.
Photo ANP
And all subsequent cabinets – including those of Prime Ministers Wim Kok (PvdA), Jan Peter Balkenende (CDA) and Rutte – used this method. The voter became accustomed to concepts such as coalition consultation and Tower Consultation: there, in the inner world, political conflicts were fought out.
A method that often kept the government afloat, but which, according to critics, eroded democracy: the real debates were never held in Parliament.
And under the Jetten cabinet it is obvious that this reality will change: the opposition can force that every sensitive debate is conducted in the openness of the national meeting room.
This in itself also fits in perfectly with the generational change in national politics. After the departure of Frans Timmermans, PVV leader Geert Wilders is the last sixty-something among the leaders. A leader who, as recently became apparent, deals with all complicated conflicts within his own circle privately. But that no longer fits in these times, they are even starting to realize that in the PVV.
And due to the closed nature of the Hague conflict resolution, the role of MPs also changed: their influence on the composition of the political agenda became increasingly smaller. They usually only come into the picture when they respond to themes on the political agenda: they rarely or never initiate these themes themselves.
I have regularly conducted research into the origins of political issues – How does a topic make it onto the Hague agenda? – and the practice is that almost all of them are installed by outsiders. This is usually the business lobby. They are often individual branches. Regular interest groups. In almost all cases supervised by one or more professional lobbyists.
Musk against Jetten?
The latter is a potential vulnerability of the emerging new openness. The fact that ministers can frequently be exposed to open conflict with the House creates enormous opportunities for the lobby sector. The coalition agreement contains a plan to introduce a lobby register, and that can indeed do no harm.
That world thrives on playing these types of conflicts to its own advantage. Commercial parties in particular will not miss this opportunity.
Coincidentally, I gave a talk at Lobbyist Night this week, and when I pointed out this aspect of the new cabinet, I only heard a murmur of approval in the room.
There is something to that. A few years ago I described how the big American tech companies got their foot in the door in The Hague with objections to an EU law, the Digital Services Act, that limits the power of those companies and protects consumers.
From one by the French LePoint Google’s unveiled strategy document already showed how sophisticated these tech companies set up such a lobby. And years later, their fight against that EU law, now with the support of the Trump administration, is still ongoing. She accused the EU at the end of December in aggressive terms of ‘censorship’.
And here is a dilemma for this minority coalition. If the Americans expand this campaign further – it should surprise no one – how can the cabinet, in the absence of a parliamentary majority, ever hold out against so much American violence?
The best scenario would be that the Americans select another EU country in their attempts to destroy that law. Because Trump, Musk and the other tech giants against Jetten? I don’t know if that would be an even fight
The journalistic principles of NRC
