Now that the House is in recess, and the ministers are also on vacation, they will not return until August to decide on the Budget Memorandum; Now that the other half of the Netherlands, including the regular columnists, is on the beach or strolling through the woods, we can finally think together for a while. About what? About a new polder model. Why? Because the Netherlands is in danger of slipping if we don’t come up with a way to make informed decisions about serious issues.
This week we first take a historical run-up. We are writing the second half of the 1990s. Wim Kok is prime minister of two successive purple cabinets – red with blue, the red social democrats of the PvdA with the blue liberals of the VVD and D66. The Netherlands ran like clockwork: high economic growth, purchasing power gains, low inflation, low unemployment, and declining government debt.
Things went so well in the Netherlands that the foreign press came in increasing numbers to ask: how do you do that? The Dutch miracle, was the answer, was the logical result of the polder model. The way in which sensible decisions have been made here, for centuries, in united cooperation.
The fight against the water, we explained to the journalists of the Financial Times, The Washington Postthe Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, El Pais and Le Monde out, is a typical collective action issue. A ring dike only works if it is completely closed, and everyone has been involved in this since time immemorial. Even if he may not feel like it. We’ll get through it together, because we have to.
As a logical continuation of the polder practice, the Netherlands later developed into consensus democracy. Governments are formed by coalitions of parties, ie cooperation partners, for the simple reason that a majority democracy is not possible in this divided country. In theory, one party can win half the seats in Parliament and rule on its own. Not in practice. Cooperation in politics is necessary.
Parties cooperating in a coalition need support for (sometimes difficult) decisions. That is why the organized business community (the capital factor) and the organized workers (the trade union federations that represent the labor factor) also have a voice in the chapter. The antipoles work together in this, not because it is necessarily pleasant, but because it is necessary. Those who want to exert influence must participate in the national conversation, and not stand on the sidelines.
The story went down like sweet cake. For a while, the polder model (pronounced in English, which gave it an exotic touch) was the most important journalistic export product of the Netherlands. They were not surprised in Germany: the Rhenish model is also introduced there with the spoon. But the Anglo-Saxons, the French and the Spaniards didn’t know what they were hearing: to be successful by working together? That sounded awful. Once you had the power, you wouldn’t share it, would you? But hey, what a performance!
This old-fashioned story serves as a contrast. Because there is no longer a foreign journalist who writes about the polder model. Nor is it a subject of great interest at home. Wrongly. Because our model no longer works properly. Our polder model is broken. And what we explained to those foreign journalists at the time sounded like a swearing finger: the Netherlands, as a country, can only be successful through cooperation within its borders. Polder model piece, country piece. This is what we will be talking about in the coming weeks. Can we get the polder model up and running again?
Frank Kalshoven is founder of De Argumentenfabriek. React? Email: [email protected].