In ancient Greek civil society was referred to by the term politikos. The opposite concept was idiotès, which meant private or individual. We have since spent some 2,500 years refining the civil society model to get to where we are today: a civilization where the two concepts coincide seamlessly. The organization of our politics has become idiotic; it revolves around individuals.
Recent events and debates in the House of Representatives raise the question of where to start with the task of restoring the prestige of politics. Is it important to make a glossary for our MPs, so that they know from now on whether you can call a colleague a company poodle or conspiracy marmot? Apparently people live in uncertainty about the curses allowed in parliament. Should the integrity committee open up ten vacancies in order to deal with all mutual grievances via the formal route from now on? Or should the Public Prosecution Service open a separate counter for reports against leaking politicians/civil servants?
Perhaps we can first inform journalists about the possibility – because it simply exists – not to publish when a calculating chatterbox wants to throw a bomb on the 24-year career of a Member of Parliament. Which measure is effective against the lack of courtesy, integrity and respect for the constitutional function of MPs?
In the September issue of HP/The Time the top-30 of the National Political Index (NPI) was presented. A gauge of content. For the composition of the NPI, the score of members of the House of Representatives on their three duties, i.e. that of (co-) legislator, auditor of the government and representative of the people, was examined. Weighted indicators were used to do justice to the weight of different activities; making a law requires more time and effort than asking parliamentary questions.
Ms Van der Plas (BBB) appears to have the highest score, Mr Grinwis (CU) is second and Ms Westerveld (GroenLinks) is number three. Ms Van der Plas reacted with moving joy to the recognition of her efforts. Mr Grinwis also appreciated the substantive assessment and called the NPI a great encouragement for MPs who still see parliamentary work as a craft.
Ms Westerveld responded with her observation that the wrong things are rewarded in our politics: ‘Scandalism, being oversimplified and easy quotes for the stage get the media and generate attention on the socials. Legislation almost never. Reading and preparing a law takes an enormous amount of time, it is complex and legislative consultations rarely receive attention. That is why many MPs drop these debates, while it is perhaps our most important task.’
Transparency is essential for a well-functioning political system. However, the current way in which the work of members of the House of Representatives is presented seems to increasingly hinder their statutory duties. The focus is on the wrong things. Fortunately, a solution for this is very simple: throw out all the cameras in the plenary meeting room. The public gallery will of course remain open to reporters and interested parties, just as the parliamentary documents will remain available to everyone. The openness of parliament is thus sufficiently guaranteed. Only the spotlight is missing, so that politicians no longer have to select their debates by airtime. Maybe grow politikos and idiotès then slowly separate again.