Every four years it is an uncomfortable, and essentially undemocratic, ritual. Members of the newly elected Provincial Council met in their provincial houses last week to vote on the composition of the Senate. The new Senate will be sworn in this month. The Members of Parliament were elected in an election that was, or should be, about provincial themes. But in reality, the voter has also influenced national politics. The Senate, created in 1815 “in order to prevent all haste in the consultations, and to put salutary stakes at the passions in difficult times,” has become a political body that has come to resemble the House of Representatives more and more. With plenty of room for coalition interests, backroom deals and political games. That may be difficult to avoid, but at the very least some thought should be given to ways of doing something about the archaic system of indirect elections. A Member of Parliament who had been elected in South Holland on behalf of GroenLinks exposed the weakness of the system. She did not vote for her own party, but for Volt. That vote was expensive: it costs GroenLinks a seat in the Senate. The Member of Parliament, Debora Fernald, said she was unaware that her vote had consequences for the Senate. Her vote does not do justice to the wishes of the voter.
But just pointing at her is not right. In recent weeks, many parties have negotiated furiously and manipulated for residual seats, in order to ensure that the distribution in the senate is as favorable as possible. It led to bizarre scenes, for example when the coalition tried to limit the loss. Members of parliament from D66 voted for the VVD, after which VVD members voted again for the CDA and the ChristenUnie. This coordination was necessary because D66 members again did not want to vote directly for CDA members. It is allowed, but it has nothing to do with representative democracy.
The Senate is a powerful body in democracy, and its weight has only increased in recent years. For decades, the Senate has ceased to be the place where constitutional review is mainly conducted. The political relations count. Moreover, the coalition of Rutte IV (VVD, D66, CDA and ChristenUnie) has nowhere near a majority, and must steer every bill and every budget past the opposition. Over the past four years, this has been difficult due to the monster victory of FVD in the 2019 elections. Cooperation with this party turned out to be virtually impossible. There was mainly one route for political compromise: across the left, via PvdA and GroenLinks. In exchange for firm commitments, these parties almost always supported the cabinet policy of Rutte III and Rutte IV. That made them unofficial coalition partners. This year’s parliamentary elections have created a different situation: Rutte can still go left, but now also has the opportunity to do business with BBB, which will become the largest party in the Senate with sixteen seats. Although the coalition has lost a lot compared to 2019, eight seats, that is a tactical advantage. Still, the weakened coalition does not seem very confident about the future. Opposition parties suspected Rutte IV of quickly piloting controversial bills through the Senate while the old senate is still in place: both the pandemic law and the pension law were passed at the last minute. The haste was unmistakable, and it once again made visible how political the Senate has become. But constitutionally, the votes were pure.
Politically strategic behavior like this is more a symptom of the problem than the problem itself. If the Senate is politicized, parties will conform to it. The role of the Senate, as Minister Donker Curtius said in 1848, should be to prevent evil rather than to establish good. Loosely translated: the Senate would be better off focusing on a robust assessment of the quality of legislation rather than redoing the work of the House of Representatives. There is much work to be done. The Council of State warns every year about the deterioration of the quality of laws. Despite its great political importance, the Senate breathes the atmosphere of folklore. The senate is elected in a non-transparent manner and consists of part-time politicians who often have a direct interest in the issue they are voting on. For example, this week the Senate approved a major reform of the pension system, while four senators are involved in a pension fund. Sometimes they even talked about it. A fundamental debate about the role of the Senate has not been held for years, and that is a democratic loss.
A version of this article also appeared in the newspaper on June 3, 2023.