Acta Politica, 2008, 43, (472–492)

r 2008 Palgrave Macmillan 0001-6810/08

www.palgrave-journals.com/ap/

Debating Democracy: The Dutch Case

Ank Michels
Utrecht School of Governance, Universiteit Utrecht, Bijlhouwerstraat 6, Utrecht 3511 ZC,
The Netherlands.
E-mail: A.M.B.Michels@uu.nl

Normative theories on democracy differ in their view on the role of citizen

participation. Whereas in the model of representative democracy, the role of citizen
participation is mainly voting; in the models of associative democracy, deliberative
democracy, and participatory democracy, other aspects of citizen participation are
emphasized. This article investigates the extent to which the theoretical debate on
democracy is reflected in the public debate on democracy and in democratic
practices. It does so for the Dutch case. The analysis shows that the representative
model dominates the Dutch debate on democracy among opinion makers and
political parties. As far as elements of other models are mentioned, there appears to
be a connection with the (ideological) background of the defenders of that
perspective: the associative concept of democracy is mainly debated among
Christian Democrats, the participatory model among parties from the Left, and the
deliberative model among academics. Although the representative model is
dominant in the public debate on democracy, the article also shows examples of
local democratic practices in which elements of different models of democracy
appear to be present.
Acta Politica (2008) 43, 472–492. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500205

Keywords: democracy; participation; public debate; political parties

Introduction
Many countries in Western Europe are facing an increasing volatility in
elections, a decreasing turnout, a loss in party membership, and the growth of
right-wing parties (Mair and van Biezen, 2001; Mair, 2005; Gallagher, 2006).
Although, broadly speaking, confidence in democracy and politics does not
seem to slipping, political research does show evidence of a loss of confidence
in political institutions and politicians and of popular indifference to
conventional politics in many countries (Dekker, 2003; Mair, 2005).
The question of how politicians should react is the subject of public debate in
many countries. In fact, this debate deals with the issue of what type of
democracy is needed. Politicians and political opinion makers do agree that in
a modern democracy citizens should participate and be involved. There is,
however, considerably less agreement on the extent to which and in what way
 Ank Michels
Debating Democracy: The Dutch Case
473

such participation should be effected. In fact, this has yielded a discussion in

which arguments from different theoretical models of democracy seem to be
interwoven.
This article aims at unravelling the debate on democracy through the lens of
democratic theory. The question addressed in this article is: to what extent is
the theoretical debate on democracy reflected in the public debate on
democracy and in democratic practices? The article examines the debate on
democracy among opinion makers and between political parties. It does so for
the Dutch case.
The first section presents four normative theoretical models of democracy.
Within each of these models, participation has a different meaning. The second
part of this article investigates the Dutch debate on democracy. It starts with a
short overview of Dutch politics during the past few decades. It then examines
the debate on democracy among opinion makers and in party manifestoes, and
presents some experiences with democratic practices. Views on participation
and democracy will be confronted with the theoretical perspectives on
democracy.

Models of Democracy
The concept of democracy has always been contested, as is evident from the
enormous body of literature on different models of democracy (see e.g. Held,
1987; Sabine, 1989; Lijphart, 1999; Saward, 2003; Hendriks, 2006). Participa-
tion is generally seen as an important element of democracy. To what extent
and how citizens should participate, are questions that belong to the core of
normative political theories on democracy. The answers differ, however.
In some theories, participation of many people is seen as vital to democracy,
whereas other theories equate participation with the selection of politicians.
In this section, four models of democracy will be presented, each emphasizing
another view on participation: the representative model of democracy, the
associative model, the deliberative model, and the participatory model of
democracy.1 These models also differ in their answers to questions like: Who
decides, and who are the main actors?

Representative democracy
The representative model of democracy is probably the model that is most
frequently described. The model focuses on decision-making by elected
representatives. Liberal democracy and polyarchical democracy are also
often-used terms to label this type of democracy (Saward, 2003, 150). In this
first model of democracy, participation plays only a marginal role and is
limited to voting for leaders.
Acta Politica 2008 43
 Ank Michels
Debating Democracy: The Dutch Case
474

One of the main representatives of this view is Joseph Schumpeter. He

defines democracy in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy as follows: ‘The
democratic method is that institutional arrangement for arriving at political
decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of
competitive struggle for the people’s vote’ (Schumpeter, 1976, first published in
1942, 269). Hence, in this view, the competition for leadership is the core of
democracy. The role of the people is no more than to produce a government
(Schumpeter, 1976, 269). Voters must understand that, once they have elected
their leader, political action is the leaders’ business and not theirs. In his view,
ordinary people could not be expected to judge about politics and policies.
Therefore, massive political participation is seen as undesirable.
A more modern representative of this view on democracy is Robert Dahl.
In his A Preface to Democratic Theory (1956), he, too, focuses on decision-
making by the elected representatives of the people. In Dahl’s view, elections
play a central role in maximizing democracy, that is, in maximizing popular
sovereignty and political equality. Through elections, voters can express their
choice for alternatives. The alternative with the greatest support among the
voters will be chosen and displace the other alternatives. The orders of the
elected politicians will then become policy. Dahl, too, has a narrow conception
of political participation. He even regards massive participation as dangerous,
because an increase in political activity among the lower socio-economic classes
could lead to more authoritarian ideas and thus to a decline in consensus about
the basic norms of democracy (Dahl, 1956, 89).
Although different theories on representative democracy may emphasize
different aspects, they share the following characteristics: the emphasis is on
decision-making by elected representatives, the main role of voters is to select
leaders, and participation takes place through elections.

Associative democracy
The model of associative democracy emphasizes the importance of informal
and local associations in democracy. These associations have an essential role
in performing governance functions on behalf of their members. In this model,
citizen participation takes place in associations.
The concept of associative democracy is most notably present in the writings
of Paul Hirst. In his book, Associative Democracy, he develops the idea of
associative democracy as an answer to the increasingly diverse and pluralistic
objectives of the members of modern societies (Hirst, 1994, 6). He claims that
individual liberty and human welfare are best served when social affairs are
managed by voluntary and democratically self-governing associations.
According to Hirst, in an associative democracy, these voluntary self-
governing associations should be the primary means of democratic governance.
Acta Politica 2008 43
 Ank Michels
Debating Democracy: The Dutch Case
475

Social movements must build their own self-governing communities in civil

society. These self-governing associations must not be regarded as secondary or
opposing organizations, but as essential to democratic politics. Also, power
should, as far as possible, be distributed to distinct domains of authority, and
administration within these domains should be devolved to the lowest level for
effective governance. And finally, democratic governance is more than
elections and majority decisions; it should also provide for the continuous
flow of information between governors and the governed. In Hirst’s view,
communication in democracy can operate best in a system where associations
have government tasks, and where coordination depends on the cooperation of
these associations (Hirst, 1994, 19–40).
So, the model of associative democracy may be said to be characterized by
voluntary self-governing associations, which are regarded as important to
democracy. Furthermore, participation takes place through associations and
there should be multiple and diverse centres of power.

Deliberative democracy
A relatively new conception of democracy is the deliberative democracy model.
The emphasis in this model of democracy is on discussion and deliberation.
Deliberation, rather than voting, is regarded as the central mechanism for
political decision-making. Participation takes place through deliberation.
Although the definitions of deliberative democracy differ widely from one
another, all theorists agree that this concept of democracy includes at least the
following characteristics (e.g. Elster, 1998; Fishkin and Laslett, 2002; Gutmann
and Thompson, 2004). First, essential to the deliberative view on democracy is
decision-making by means of arguments. Participants in the democratic
process discuss with each other problems and proposed solutions to these
problems. And secondly, a deliberative process assumes free public reasoning,
equality, inclusion of different interests, and mutual respect. Only then, argue
the theorists of deliberative democracy, can deliberation lead to rational and
legitimate decisions.
Many issues remain on which there is less clarity. One of the issues is where
deliberation should take place and who should be involved. Theories of
deliberative democracy make mention of a wide range of possible deliberation
forums, varying from parliament to expert forums and citizen panels (Fishkin
and Laslett, 2002; Akkerman, 2006). Other issues regard the goal of
deliberation (to reach a consensus or not), and the question of when
deliberation stops and decision-making starts. However, all theorists on
deliberative democracy focus on the democratic process. No matter how many
people participate, who participates, and where participation takes place, the
Acta Politica 2008 43
 Ank Michels
Debating Democracy: The Dutch Case
476

process of coming to decisions can only be valued as democratic if it meets the

criteria of deliberation.
Hence, characteristic for deliberative democracy is public debate and
discussion, the assumption of free public reasoning and equality, and parti-
cipation through deliberation.

Participatory democracy
The final model of participatory democracy emphasizes the necessity of
extensive participation in decision-making. In this model, citizen participation
is regarded as vital to democracy.
The theoretical roots of this view go back to Rousseau. Although his idea of
an ideal society was a society of small peasants characterized by a large degree
of economic equality and economic independence, his view that the
participation of each citizen in political decision-making is vitally important
to the functioning of the state laid the foundation for theories on the role of
participation in modern democracies. In Rousseau’s view, as formulated in Du
Contrat Social, the basis of the political system is the social contract. Under
this contract the citizens abstain from their own desires and decide to be free by
making the laws that rule them (Rousseau, 1988/1762, 10–12 and 27–30).
Hence, political participation is an essential element because it ensures
freedom for everyone. In addition, participation has important educational
and social functions; by participating, individual citizens learn to be public
citizens who are engaged in more than just their own private interests
(Rousseau, 1988/1762, 14–15).
Modern theorists on participatory democracy, like Pateman, emphasize that
participation should not only cover every aspect of political decision-making,
but should encompass such areas as the workplace and local communities as
well (Pateman, 1970). Other theorists propose the referendum as an instrument
for participatory democracy. But in all theories of participatory democracy,
citizens are regarded as the central actors.
To conclude, the emphasis in the participatory model on democracy is on
broad and direct participation by citizens in political decision-making, and in
other areas as well.
In Table 1, the main characteristics of the four models of democracy are
summarized. The four models of democracy vary in the way they view such
fundamentals as direct or indirect democracy (which distinguishes the
participatory democracy model from the models of representative democracy
and associative democracy), the democratic process or decision-making (which
sets the deliberative model of democracy apart from the other models), or the
organized group or the individual as the central actor (which distinguishes
the associative democracy model from the others). Participation has a different
Acta Politica 2008 43
 Ank Michels
Debating Democracy: The Dutch Case
477

Table 1 Models of democracy, views on participation

Representative democracy Associative democracy

Decision-making Decision-making
K Decision-making by elected K Voluntary self-governing associations
representatives (e.g. interest groups, religious groups) as
primary means of democratic governance
K Focus on decision-making K Localized power
institutions

Main actors Main actors

K Voters (selection of leaders) K Voluntary self-governing associations
K Political leaders

Participation Participation
K Participation through elections K Participation through associations

Deliberative democracy Participatory democracy

Decision-making Decision-making
K Focus on the democratic process and K Focus on decision-making by individual
not on decision-making, which in- citizens
cludes:
K Public debate and discussion K Direct democracy: referenda
K Free public reasoning and equality K Participation in local communities, the
workplace, etc.

Main actors Main actors

K Participants in deliberation K Individual citizens

Participation Participation
K Participation through deliberation K Broad and direct participation

meaning in each of the models, but there is no hierarchy from low to high
participation between the models. The models are ideal types of democracy
that in practice may be seen as complementary to one another. For instance,
modern democracies are representative democracies, but most of them also
exhibit characteristics of the other models.

The Dutch Case

Dutch politics have gone through a period of heavy turmoil since the beginning
of the new century. The electoral victory of the newcomer Pim Fortuyn in the
Acta Politica 2008 43
 Ank Michels
Debating Democracy: The Dutch Case
478

2002 elections made it clear that something had gone wrong in Dutch politics.
Long known as a stable democracy, the Netherlands suddenly became an
example of the uprising of the citizens against the political elites. The need for
changes and adaptations in the democratic system and culture was widely
heard. The Dutch case is therefore an interesting case to study.
Dutch society has developed from a society in which passivity and allegiance
to the elites of the pillars was the dominant political attitude of the citizens,
into a society marked by growing demands and dissatisfaction among citizens
and a growing concern among politicians about a widening gap with the
public. In the era of ‘Pillarization’ (1945–1965), Dutch society was
characterized by tightly organized sub-cultures of minorities, which were
organized along a religious and socio-economic dimension. Pillarization
structured political parties, but also trade unions, schools, the media, and
leisure activities (Lijphart, 1979). Nearly every aspect of social life took place
within these pillars. In this era, political attitudes of Dutch citizens could be
characterized by passivity and a broad acceptance of the authority of the elites.
This passivity can partly be explained by the dominance of the elites, but was
also due to the political attitude of the Dutch in general. As Daalder argued,
the Dutch attitude towards authority could be characterized as a mixture of
deference and indifference (Daalder, 1966).
This situation began to change in the second half of the 1960s. In the 1967
elections the religious parties lost a substantial part of their votes. In the years
that followed, the pillars began to disintegrate and the dividing lines between
the pillars began to blur. The number of people who felt a strong loyalty to the
pillar in which they had been raised declined rapidly. This ongoing
‘depillarization’ took place against the backdrop of a broader movement for
democratization and resistance to authority that originated from the youth
cultures of western-European cities. In the 1970s and 1980s, new forms of
participation arose outside the official political arena. New social movements,
like the women’s movement, the squatters, and the anti-nuclear movement
tried to influence politics by organizing extra-parliamentary actions.
Since the second half of the 1980s, there has been increasing support for
political parties with strongly negative opinions about ethnic minorities and
asylum seekers (the Centre Party, later Centre Democrats, in the 1980s and
1990s, and the List Pim Fortuyn since 2002). Also, among large groups of the
electorate, there has been a growing distrust in political institutions and politics
in general (Dekker and Van der Meer, 2004; Becker and Dekker, 2005). These
developments, further encouraged by a slight decrease in voter turnout,
contributed to a growing concern among the established political elites about a
widening gap with the public. As an answer to the gap between politicians and
citizens, the debate on democratic reforms broadened and several constitu-
tional reforms have been proposed. Earlier research shows that there is a
Acta Politica 2008 43
 Ank Michels
Debating Democracy: The Dutch Case
479

certain consensus among the administrative and academic elites in the

Netherlands on the desired type of democracy (Michels, 2006). Citizen
participation is thought to encompass more than just voting in elections.
However, participation is not seen as an essential feature of democracy but, at
best, as an instrument to improve the current working of representative
democracy.

Opinion Makers and the Debate on Democracy

In this contribution, the focus is on the public debate. We start with the debate
on democracy among opinion makers. In order to gain an impression of the
issues and models of democracy that are debated among opinion makers, an
analysis of newspaper articles was carried out. The analysis included
newspaper articles, which were published in the NRC-Handelsblad between
January 2002 and December 2005. NRC-Handelsblad is considered to be an
important national and neutral newspaper that offers a broad view of divergent
(political) opinions. Since we are looking for a variety in opinions on
democracy, NRC-Handelsblad seemed to be a good choice for selection.
Opinion makers writing for this newspaper have various political and
professional backgrounds , and we therefore may expect a variety in opinions
on democracy. The findings are not representative of the opinions of all
opinion makers in the Netherlands, in the sense that it may very well be that
some ideas on democracy (e.g. those that are mainly debated among
academics) are over-represented, but they do offer a picture of the different
positions in the debate on democracy among opinion makers.
The starting point for the selection of articles was the object of the analysis,
which was the relationship between (participation of) citizens on the one hand,
and the political domain on the other. I therefore made a selection of articles
on the issue, beginning my search with articles that included the words citizen
and politics, and then extending the selection with all possible combinations of
the words democracy, participation, citizens, and politics. From these, I
selected all articles expressing an opinion on this issue for the Netherlands.
I have defined opinion makers broadly enough such as to include everybody
who takes part in the public debate, among whom politicians, ex-politicians,
political commentators, academic opinion leaders, but also readers who have
an interest in the subject. The final selection of articles contained 83 articles.
The unit of analysis was the article. To determine the model category to
which an article was to be assigned, I reviewed this against the characteristics
of the models presented in Table 1. Every bullet defines a characteristic of that
respective model of democracy. If an article contained a mention of one or
more characteristics of a particular democracy model, that article was labelled
as fitting into that model. For example, if an opinion maker focused on the
Acta Politica 2008 43
 Ank Michels
Debating Democracy: The Dutch Case
480

relevance of referenda for democracy, that article was categorized as fitting

into the participatory democracy model. If the focus was on public debate and
reasoning, the article came into the category of deliberative democracy. In the
majority of the articles, only a single concept of democracy was expressed in
one article. But, in a few cases, a combination of opinions was expressed, which
fall into different categories of democracy. In those cases, the article was
categorized as partly falling into the one model and partly in another, or even
several others.

Representative democracy
Elements from the representative model of democracy dominate the public
debate on democracy. A vast majority of the newspaper articles by opinion
makers (61%) fits into this model; that is, in these articles the emphasis is on
decision-making by elected representatives, the selection of leaders, leadership,
decision-making institutions, and elections.
The opinion makers who use arguments from this model of democracy have
different political and professional backgrounds. A large number of them are
politicians or ex-politicians from various political parties, including the Liberal
party (VVD), the Democratic Liberals (D66), the Christian Democratic party
(CDA), the Labour Party (PvdA), Green Left (GroenLinks), and the List Pim
Fortuyn (LPF). Others have an academic background in constitutional law,
political science, public administration, sociology, or history. Others again, are
political commentators, staff members of research institutions of political
parties, or ordinary politically engaged citizens.
Some of the opinion makers merely stress the relevance of the preservation
of representative democracy. Others make suggestions to improve the current
working of representative democracy. However, there is no agreement on
which elements of the working or the system of representative democracy
should be adapted. The debate on this subject can be summarized in six main
issues. The first issue concerns the working of parliament. According to many
opinion makers, parliament (specifically, the Second Chamber) should be more
active in controlling government. Coalition politics and agreements between
the government and the coalition parties in parliament make it difficult for
individual parliamentarians to disagree. Nevertheless, many opinion makers
argue for a more active role of parliamentarians, for more dualism between
parliament and government, and for abolishing party discipline. A second issue
concerns the quality and attitude of politicians. Many emphasize that we need
better, stronger, and more passionate politicians. This demands a better
selection of individual members of parliament. Until now, quality has not
always seemed to be a criterion for selection. Furthermore, these opinion
makers feel that it is important that politicians not only listen to the people but
Acta Politica 2008 43
 Ank Michels
Debating Democracy: The Dutch Case
481

also clearly state what is beyond their competence. The third issue is the selection
of political leaders and senior civil servants. With respect to this issue, opinion
makers advocate either a direct election of major political positions or a more
transparent procedure for arriving at political appointments. Fourth, there is
the issue of institutional revisions. These include suggestions for revising the
electoral system (a stronger focus on regional representation, or a voting
threshold), and changes in the cabinet formation. The fifth issue is transparency
and accountability. A modern government and public sector should be more
transparent, more service oriented, and more accountable to the public. And
finally, the sixth issue, concerns the role of political parties. Some opinion
makers point to the lack of a clear choice between political alternatives and
favour a political landscape with two major political parties or combinations of
parties offering voters two clear alternative policy programmes.

Associative democracy
The associative model of democracy is much less apparent in the public debate
on democracy among opinion makers. Elements from this model can be found
in only 6% of the newspaper articles. In these articles, the focus is on self-
governing associations and groups and on localized power. Arguments from
this model can be heard among leaders of the main workers’ organizations and
within the Christian Democratic Party.
Most opinion makers, following the associative line of argument, emphasize
that for a better working of the political system, the responsibility should be
given back to citizens (e.g. teachers, parents, directors of schools) and self-
governing associations. Private initiatives should be encouraged and government
interference with society should be reduced. Concepts, such as private initiative
(particulier initiatief ), civil society, and organizations between state and market
(maatschappelijk middenveld ) which are typical for the Dutch discourse on the
relation between state and society and which are part of the Christian political
ideology, dominate the debate on this issue. Others stress the importance of the
cooperation between employers’ and workers’ organizations for the working of
democracy. A single opinion maker points to the actual development of a
network society in which the traditional democratic institutions lose power, and
a plurality of organizations and power centres develop. In his view, this
development strengthens democracy, in the sense that it contributes to a stronger
system of checks and balances, that is, of power and counter power.

Deliberative democracy
Elements from the deliberative model of democracy can only be found in 7%
of the newspaper articles. In these articles, the focus is on public debate and
Acta Politica 2008 43
 Ank Michels
Debating Democracy: The Dutch Case
482

discussion, and on free public reasoning. Furthermore, attention is primarily

paid to the democratic process and less to decision-making.
Most of the opinion makers who use arguments from this model of
democracy have an academic background in sociology, political science, and
legal philosophy. Some of them are staff members of advisory committees or
journalists. All of them emphasize the relevance of public debate in a
democracy, but they differ in their interpretation of where changes should take
place. According to some of them, the parliament and political parties have a
role in increasing the quality of the debates in parliament, which are often
considered to be of poor quality, with too much focus on technical details.
Others consider it essential to democracy that citizens meet outside the
traditional political forums for open discussions on political and other
community matters. Ideas aimed at introducing citizen forums and panels in
which citizens deliberate and try to give a well-informed advice that could play
a role in formal decision-making have been launched. Finally, some opinion
makers argue in favour of inclusion of migrants and other groups who often do
not take part in the public debate.

Participatory democracy
Elements from the participatory model of democracy determine for a
considerable part the public debate on democracy. A minority of 26% of the
newspaper articles by opinion makers fits into this model. In these articles, the
focus is on direct democracy, referendums, participatory decision-making,
including individual participation in local communities and the workplace.
Again, the opinion makers who use arguments from this model of
democracy have different political backgrounds, although the politicians
and ex-politicians from the Democratic Liberals (D66), the Labour Party
(PvdA) and Green Left (GroenLinks) dominate the debate on introducing
participatory elements in a democracy. Other participants in this debate
are members of governmental advisory organizations, political commentators
and academics, notably sociologists, historians, and researchers in public
administration.
The opinion makers arguing within this model emphasize the importance of
giving more responsibility and influence to the people. Most of them give
concrete suggestions for introducing participatory democratic elements. These
suggestions can be summarized into three categories. The first category
encompasses suggestions for institutional revisions, such as the introduction of
the referendum, the popular initiative, the recall procedure, and the right for
citizens to put policy problems on the political agenda. The debate
concentrates on the referendum and the various types of referendums
(a decisive or a consultative referendum; after a decision has been taken by
Acta Politica 2008 43
 Ank Michels
Debating Democracy: The Dutch Case
483

parliament or before; a choice between a yes or a no or multiple choices).

A second category contains suggestions for a more direct participation and
influence of parents at schools, of patients in hospitals, and of citizens in local
communities. Citizens should also be more directly involved in policy making
of local governments. Many opinion makers point to the relevance of the
internet to support citizen participation. The internet makes it possible for
citizens to get information on policy issues, to compare data (about hospitals
for example), and to participate in discussions. Finally, a third issue is the
education of democratic citizens. Democratic participation should be learned
at an early stage, at school and in the family.
To conclude, the representative model dominates the debate on democracy
among opinion makers. Elements of other models are less prominent and
mostly mentioned by opinion makers with a specific (ideological) background.
The findings are summarized in the first two columns of Table 2.

Suggestions for Improving Democracy in Party Manifestoes

Political parties take part in the public debate by debating issues in mass
gatherings, on television and on the internet. Members of parliament,
ministers, but also local representatives are the spokesmen of the party’s ideas
on these occasions. The main ideas of political parties can be found in party
manifestoes, which try to give the public and other political parties an idea of
what the party’s priorities are and what their representatives intend to do if
they were to ascend to power. Although manifestoes are read by relatively few
electors, they constitute the major direct influence on what parties are seen as
standing for (Budge, 1987, 18).
Democracy and the role of citizens in politics is only one of the issues in
party manifestoes. In the 2006 party manifestoes, the political parties present
several suggestions for improving democracy, sometimes combining ideas from
different models of democracy. I selected those parts of each manifesto that
dealt with the issue of democracy and the role of citizens in politics.
Participation and giving citizens a say were other keywords for selection.
Except for the CDA party manifesto, these issues were put forward in all
manifestoes in one chapter or section, usually with a title that clearly referred
to the issue (see endnotes 5–10). The analysis of the party manifestoes, then,
focused on those relevant chapters or sections. In order to determine the
democracy model(s) to which a party manifesto was to be assigned, I reviewed
this against the characteristics of the models presented in Table 1.
The Christian Democratic party, CDA (Christen Democratisch Appèl)
makes a strong point of defending representative democracy and, at the same
time, favours a democracy in which self-governing organizations bear
Acta Politica 2008 43
Acta Politica 2008 43

484
Table 2 The debate on democracy in the Netherlands

Opinion makers Party manifestoes Democratic practices

Debating Democracy: The Dutch Case

Ank Michels
Background Issues Background Issues Examples

Representative All Working of parliament CDA, VVD, PvdA, Revisions of institutions

democracy Quality and attitude of politicians SP,Chr Unie, Direct elections (mayor,
Selection of leaders GroenLinks, D66 coalition)
Revisions of institutions Transparency and
Transparency and accountability accountability
Political parties

Associative Mainly Christian Responsibility to citizens and self- CDA Responsibility to citizens Private initiatives
democracy democratic governing associations and their organizations
Cooperation between employers’
and workers’ organizations
Encouraging a network society

Deliberative Mainly Debate in parliament GroenLinks Public debate Citizen panels

democracy academics Citizens’ forums and panels Open culture
Inclusion of all groups

Participatory Mainly left-wing Referendum and popular initiative PvdA, D66, Groen- Referendum Neighbourhood
democracy Participation in local communities, Links, SP, Chr Unie Citizen panels budgets
schools, hospitals, etc. (emphasis on
Education of democratic citizens decision-making)
Participation in local
communities
Education of democratic
citizens
 Ank Michels
Debating Democracy: The Dutch Case
485

responsibilities.2 According to the CDA, a representative democracy is the best

way of governing a country because it forces decisions to be taken in public
which serve the general interest. Suggestions for improving the working of
representative democracy are rather minimal: the CDA party manifesto of
2006 makes suggestions for a slight revision of the electoral system.
Accordingly, the party also opposes the referendum, which would create
‘vagueness about follow-up courses’.3 At the same time, Christian Democrats
in the Netherlands have always strongly believed that self-governing
associations should have an important role in a pluralist democracy (Michels,
2007). Also in the 2006 party manifesto, the CDA reasserts its belief in the
strength of an associative democracy, favouring more responsibilities for
citizens and their organizations. The party expects strong organizations
between state and market (maatschappelijk middenveld) to be better able to
contribute to good education, public health, and housing.
The Labour Party, PvdA (Partij van de Arbeid), comes up with several
suggestions for improving representative democracy, such as a revision of the
electoral system, a reduction of the number of members of parliament, and a
greater influence of the voters on the selection of the formateur4 and the mayor.
In addition to this, the PvdA wants to give people a greater say in concrete
political decision-making by introducing participatory elements of democracy.5
Therefore, the party advocates the institution of corrective referendums (after a
decision has been taken) and encourages alternative forms of decision-making
including citizen panels.
Like the PvdA, the Socialist Party, SP (Socialistische Partij), makes
suggestions both to strengthen the working of the representative democratic
institutions, for example by giving voters the possibility to vote for a
government coalition, and to supplement representative democracy by
introducing elements of participatory democracy.6 Elements of participatory
democracy include proposals for a corrective referendum and a ‘recall
referendum’. A recall referendum could, under very strict conditions,
give power to the voters to send the government away and to call for new
elections. Furthermore, the SP wants to give power and financial means
directly to the people in neighbourhoods and to encourage participation
of citizens in neighbourhoods and in councils of housing companies and
schools. The SP is aware of the fact that political involvement and citizen
participation ask for strong democratic abilities, in which dialogue, respect
and conflict solution are important values. These should, therefore, be taught
at school.
The Liberal party, VVD (Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie), has,
notwithstanding the word democracy in its name, not very much to add to
the debate on democracy. The party manifesto of 2006 advocates a reduction
of the number of members of parliament and for the direct election of mayors.7
Acta Politica 2008 43
 Ank Michels
Debating Democracy: The Dutch Case
486

The Green Left party, in Dutch GroenLinks, combines in its programme

elements of different models of democracy.8 The party wants more influence for
voters on the composition of government coalitions. GroenLinks is also a strong
supporter of more direct elements of democracy, including the corrective and
binding referendum. The party also favours more referendums on European
issues and the introduction of the European citizens’ initiative (the initiative to
get issues on the political agenda). More strongly than any of the other parties,
GroenLinks emphasizes the role of an open public debate on political issues, not
only in parliament, but also at alternative forums such as music festivals and
network communities on the internet. Democracy demands an open culture in
which different lifestyles, values and political opinions meet each other.
The ChristenUnie (a conservative party with left-wing positions on socio-
economic issues) defends the representative democracy as the only possible
answer to the complexity of policy issues. In the perception of the
ChristenUnie, forms of direct democracy are only acceptable if these do not
challenge the principle of representation.9 Therefore, the ChristenUnie, for the
first time, supports the introduction of the corrective referendum, but only
under strict conditions.
Finally, the Democratic Liberals, D66 (Democraten 66), have always been a
strong supporter of the referendum and other forms of direct democracy,10 to
the extent that this has become one of their ‘crown jewels’; or, in other words,
the issue of democratic reforms has become one of the major themes of their
political programme and policy. Other proposals seek to give citizens a more
direct influence on the selection of political leaders, and further include the
revision of the electoral system, and a call for more attention for public
accountability on policy outputs. D66 is very explicit in rejecting a major role
for the interest organizations of the ‘poldermodel’, that is, the trade unions and
the employers’ organizations.
To conclude, political parties present several suggestions for improving
democracy, in which they combine ideas from different models of democracy.
The representative model of democracy dominates and is present in all party
manifestoes. The other democratic models are less present and more closely
related to a specific political ideology. Thus, elements of the associative model
can only be traced in the CDA party manifesto. The focus on associative
elements corresponds to the Christian Democratic ideology in which self-
governing associations are considered to be the core of society and pluralist
democracy. Also, elements of the participatory model are only present in the
manifestoes of the parties from the Left. And, except for the manifesto of
GroenLinks, the deliberative concept of democracy is not an issue within
political parties.
The main findings are summarized in the third and fourth column of
Table 2.
Acta Politica 2008 43
 Ank Michels
Debating Democracy: The Dutch Case
487

Democratic Practices
Whereas in the public debate on democracy the representative model is
dominant, in daily political life, and particularly in local politics, we can
witness a large variety of initiatives and experiences that reveal elements of the
other models of democracy. Often, elements of different models come in
combination. This section presents three examples of democratic practices.

Citizen panels
Citizen panels, also known as citizen juries, forums or deliberative polls, come
in various forms. There is variation in the degree to which participation in the
panel is open to every citizen, the stage of citizen participation in the decision-
making process, and the extent to which citizens have the power to make final
political decisions. However, there is one thing they have in common, namely
the importance that is attached to the process of deliberation and free public
reasoning. It is important to note that citizen panels are a different category
than stakeholder dialogues and consultations, in the sense that, in the latter,
stakeholders are represented, whereas in citizen panels individual citizens are
expected to speak for themselves.
There have been experiences with citizen panels in many countries, notably
in the United States and Britain (Fishkin and Laslett, 2002). In the past decade,
the Netherlands has had experience with citizen panels at both the regional
(on regional development in the province of Flevoland for example, Huitema
and Lavrijsen, 2006), and at the national level (a citizen jury was asked to
advise the government about a new electoral system). Most experience, though,
has been gained at the local level (Leyenaar, 2005; Grin et al., 2006; Van
Stokkom, 2006).
Citizen panels are meant to strengthen the deliberative character of
policy making in order to come to better decisions that serve the public
interest. These panels are closely linked to the deliberative model of
democracy. In practice, the deliberative character of many citizen panels
may be doubted. In a study on experiences with deliberative democracy, Van
Stokkom provides some interesting examples of cases in which argument
was scarce and a small minority of participants dominated the debate
( Van Stokkom, 2006, 25–63). This happens, particularly, in cases where
participation is open to all citizens and where citizens do not share or have
access to the same expert knowledge. In addition to the deliberative elements,
citizen panels sometimes also share elements with the participatory model
of democracy when the aim is to give citizens the power to influence political
decisions. However, often the relation with the official decision-making process
remains unclear.
Acta Politica 2008 43
 Ank Michels
Debating Democracy: The Dutch Case
488

Private initiatives of citizens

Private initiatives of citizens are essential to a strong civil society ( Putnam,
2000; Dekker, 2002). Initiatives in neighbourhoods have often been started by
the local government, welfare organizations, or other social organizations
( WRR, 2005). But there are also many examples of spontaneous initiatives of
citizens, for example, coming together to keep a park in the neighbourhood, to
help asylum seekers, or to organize a day trip for handicapped people.
Characteristic of these initiatives is that they are local, small-scale initiatives of
self-governing groups of citizens.
Research on the Dutch case shows that the main aims of these spontaneous
initiatives of citizens are to improve the quality of life in the neighbourhood
and to take care of the vulnerable groups in society (Universiteit van
Amsterdam/NICIS, 2006, 20). In most cases, experiences close to home are
more important to galvanize people into action than national or global
problems. Although these initiatives of citizens come from below, most
initiatives or associations maintain contact with organizations in the outside
world, with the local government and other organizations from which they
expect (financial) support or just a listening ear. The aims vary. Examples of
these kinds of initiative include residents’ associations, lobby associations for a
playground or a building for cultural activities, local supporting associations
for migrants or poor people, alternative public transport, cooperatives of
artists, and education programmes for specific groups.
Private initiatives of citizens clearly bear the characteristics of the associative
model of democracy. But it can also very well be argued that there are links
with the participatory model of democracy, when the focus shifts to individual
participation and to decision-making in local communities, and even with the
deliberative model, when on the role of debate and the democratic process
within associations is taken into account.

Neighbourhood budgets
It is not difficult to find cases where individual citizens participate and
have a direct say in decision-making. Examples of cases range from
patients’ councils at hospitals and nursing homes, workers’ councils at the
workplace, and parents’ and pupils’ councils at schools, to citizen participation
in local policy making, or interactive policy making. Characteristic to
interactive policy making is the fact that citizens and social organizations
take an active role in the policy process at an early stage. This approach
to policy making is considered to be particularly useful in circumstances
where there are many stakeholders with conflicting interests, complex issues,
and many solutions to the particular problem ( Walters et al., 2000). There is,
Acta Politica 2008 43
 Ank Michels
Debating Democracy: The Dutch Case
489

however, much variation in the actual influence of citizens on the final

decision-making.
Another way of giving citizens a greater say in local affairs is to allocate a
budget directly to the residents of a neighbourhood who have a concrete
proposal for improving the quality of life or the safety in that particular
neighbourhood. Since the beginning of the new century, many cities in the
Netherlands have been experimenting with neighbourhood budgets.11 Budgets
are allocated to such things as a playground for the youth, a work of art, or a
facelift for a dilapidated square, park, or path. Always, the idea is that citizens
not only conceive of a plan but are also responsible for its implementation.
The element of direct participation and influence of citizens in spending a
neighbourhood budget is closely linked to the participatory idea of democracy.
But there are also elements of the deliberative model of democracy. After all,
decision-making on the issue of how to spend the budget first requires
organizing the process of coming to decisions.
The right column of Table 2 summarizes the main findings.

Conclusion
The analysis clearly illustrated that, whereas in the theoretical debate
on democracy a number of models have been debated, the representative
model dominates the public debate on democracy in the Netherlands. While
other models of democracy are not absent from the debate, they play only a
minor role. The study further found that as far as elements from the
other models of democracy occur in the debate, there is a strong link to the
(ideological) background of the debaters. Thus, the opinion makers who
use arguments from the representative model of democracy have various
professional and political backgrounds, whereas the opinion makers arguing
within the other democracy models have a more specific background:
the associative concept of democracy is mainly debated among
Christian Democrats, the participatory concept among opinion makers from
the Left, and the deliberative concept among academics. A similar pattern
has been found in the analysis of the party manifestoes: elements of the
associative model can be found in the CDA party manifesto, elements of
the participatory model are only present in the manifestoes of the parties from
the Left, and the deliberative concept of democracy is almost absent. A striking
finding is, furthermore, that political parties do not make any suggestions
that affect their own position, whereas opinion makers make several
suggestions to improve the role of political parties and the quality of individual
politicians. Finally, although the representative model is dominant in the
public debate on democracy, this article presents examples of democratic
Acta Politica 2008 43
 Ank Michels
Debating Democracy: The Dutch Case
490

practices in which, often a combination of, elements of other models of

democracy can be traced.
The conclusion that arguments on participation and democracy are modified
by party ideology may also raise doubts on the future development of the
debate on Dutch democracy. The views on democracy seem very fixed. The
much less ideological democratic practices offer more hope for the develop-
ment of new forms of democracy in which, often, elements of different models
of democracy are combined.

References

Akkerman, T. (2006) ‘Deliberatie en democratie. Een pleidooi voor vernieuwing van de politieke
cultuur’, in J. Grin, M. Hajer and W. Versteeg (eds.) Meervoudige democratie. Ervaringen met
vernieuwend bestuur, Amsterdam: Aksant, pp. 34–46.
Andeweg, R.B. and Irwin, G.A. (1993) Dutch Government and Politics, Houndmills, Basingstoke,
Hampshire: Macmillan.
Becker, J. and Dekker, P. (2005) ‘Beeld van beleid en politiek’, in Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau
De sociale staat van Nederland, Den Haag: SCP, pp. 328–362.
Budge, I. (1987) ‘The Internal Analysis of Election Programmes’, in I. Budge, D. Robertson and D.
Hearl (eds.) Ideology, Strategy and Party Change: Spatial Analyses of Post-war Election
Programmes in 19 Democracies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 15–38.
Daalder, H. (1966) ‘The Netherlands: Opposition in a Segmented Society’, in R.A. Dahl
(ed.) Political Oppositions in Western Democracies, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
pp. 188–236.
Dahl, R.A. (1956) A Preface to Democratic Theory, Chicago, IL.: The University of Chicago Press.
Dekker, P. (2002) De oplossing van de civil society: over vrijwillige associaties in tijden van vervagende
grenzen, Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.
Dekker, P. (2003) ‘Afkeer van de politiek?’ Christen-democratische verkenningen 2003 (Winter):
30–36.
Dekker, P. and van der Meer, T. (2004) ‘Politiek vertrouwen 1997–2004’, Tijdschrift voor de Sociale
sector 2004 (December): 33–35.
Elster, J. (ed.) (1998) Deliberative Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Engelen, E.R. and Sie Dhian Ho, M. (2004) ‘Democratische Vernieuwing. Luxe of Noodzaak?’, in
Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid (WRR) E.R. Engelen and M.Sic Dhian Ho
(eds.) De staat van de democratie. Democratie voorbij de staat, Amsterdam: Amsterdam
University Press, pp. 17–37.
Fishkin, J.S. and Laslett, P. (eds.) (2002) ‘Philosophy, politics & society, special issue, debating
deliberative democracy’, Political Philosophy, Vol. 10, No. 2.
Gallagher, M., Laver, M. and Mair, P. (2006) Representative Government in Modern Europe,
New York: McGraw-Hill
Grin, J., Hajer, M. and Versteeg, W. (eds.) (2006) Meervoudige democratie. Ervaringen met
vernieuwend bestuur, Amsterdam: Aksant.
Gutmann, A. and Thompson, D. (2004) Why Deliberative Democracy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Held, D. (1987) Models of Democracy, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hendriks, F. (2006) Vitale democratie. Theorie van democratie in actie, Amsterdam: Amsterdam
University Press.

Acta Politica 2008 43

 Ank Michels
Debating Democracy: The Dutch Case
491

Hirst, P. (1994) Associative Democracy. New Forms of Economic and Social Governance,
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Huitema, D. and Lavrijsen, R. (2006) ‘Burgerparticipatie en politieke betrokkenheid’, in
D. Huitema, S. Meijerink, J. Ragetlie and B. Steur (eds.) De boel bij elkaar houden, Essyas naar
aanleiding van het Festival der bestuurskunde 3.0 Amsterdam: Rozenberg Publishers, pp. 81–84.
Leyenaar, M. (2005) ‘Burgerparticipatie en nieuwe vormen van lokale besluitvorming’, in
H. Reynaert (ed.) Nieuwe vormen van bestuur, Brugge: Vanden Broele.
Lijphart, A. (1979) Verzuiling, Pacificatie en Kentering in de Nederlandse Politiek, Amsterdam:
J.H. De Bussy.
Lijphart, A. (1999) Patterns of Democracies. Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in
Thirty-Six Countries, New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Mair, P. (2005) ‘Democracy beyond parties’, Center for the Study of Democracy, paper 05-06,
University of California, Irvine.
Mair, P. and van Biezen, I. (2001) ‘Party membership in twenty European democracies 1980–2000’,
Party Politics 7(1): 5–21.
Michels, A. (2007) ‘Theories and core principles of Dutch democracy’, European Governance
Papers (EUROGOV) No. C-07-01 http://www.connex-network.org/eurogov/pdf/egp-connex-
C-07-01.pdf
Michels, A.M.B. (2006) ‘Citizen participation and democracy in the Netherlands’, Democratization
13(2): 323–339.
Pateman, C. (1970) Participation and Democratic Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Putnam, R.D. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, New York:
Simon & Schuster.
Rousseau, J.-J. (1988; first published in 1762) Het Maatschappelijk Verdrag of Beginselen der
Staatsinrichting (Du Contrat Social), Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
Sabine, G.H. (1989) A History of Political Theory, Orlando: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Saward, M. (2003) Democracy, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1976; first published in 1942) Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, New York:
Harper & Row.
Universiteit van Amsterdam/NICIS Kenniscentrum Grote Steden (2006) Wat burgers bezielt: Een
onderzoek naar burgerinitiatieven, Amsterdam: UvA/NICIS.
Van Stokkom, B. (2006) Rituelen van beraadslaging. Reflecties over burgerberaad en burgerbestuur,
Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Walters, L.C., Aydelotte, J. and Miller, J. (2000) ‘Putting more public in policy analysis’, Public
Administration Review 60(4): 349–359.
WRR (Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid) (2005) Vertrouwen in de buurt,
Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Notes
1 For a similar classification, see Engelen and Sie Dhian Ho (2004, 28–33).
2 CDA party manifesto, Chapter 2 (Vertrouwen in maatschappelijke organisaties), introduction,
and Chapter 6 (Vertrouwen in een betrokken Nederland), introduction and the Sections 6.1.2
and 6.1.3.
3 CDA party manifesto 2006, Section 6.1.3.
4 A formateur leads the negotiations between the prospective governing parties (see Andeweg and
Irwin, 1993, 109–114).
5 PvdA party manifesto 2006, Chapter 8 (Werken aan een bindend bestuur).
6 SP party manifesto 2006, Chapter 1 (Betere democratie).

Acta Politica 2008 43

 Ank Michels
Debating Democracy: The Dutch Case
492

7 VVD party manifesto 2006.

8 GroenLinks party manifesto 2006, Chapter 9 (Allemaal burgers).
9 ChristenUnie party manifesto 2006, Chapter 2 (Leven), Section 2.1.
10 D66 party manifesto 2006, Chapter ‘Mensen besturen zelf ’.
11 Examples are: Waalwijk, Hilversum, Almere, Zwolle, Delft, and parts of Amsterdam.

Acta Politica 2008 43