Dutch Politics and the Problems of Proportionality

Hyunseok Ryu

18 November 2021

(Image courtesy of Unsplash)

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policy of InQuire Media

Europe loves its coalitions, and the Netherlands is a perfect example of it. It uniquely has a full nationwide proportional system of voting, and without a representation threshold for any parties. One could even say that it's the quintessential example of European governance. No single party obtains a majority, with a diverse array of parties ensuring compromise and broader discussion. The Netherlands probably has the most diverse range of parties in Europe: 16 parties, excluding independents, in its lower house.

However, since the latest election, the glaring issues with its voting system have been made clearer than ever. The election was held on 17 March 2021, and as of writing this it has been more than 8 months without an official government - and the days are still counting. Prime Minister Mark Rutte leads a demissionary (interim) cabinet, and technically speaking he’s resigned from his office. This is due to an impossible coalition puzzle - few parties are willing to cooperate with each other, with the seemingly Sisyphean effort for consensus still underway.

Now, this doesn’t mean Dutch society is in chaos. A demissionary government is still a government, and people are living their lives as normal. But it’s still not a good sign when the country is being run on what is supposed to be a temporary government. This wasn’t always the case, as before 2010 coalition building was usually not this challenging, but the country grew more polarised like all European countries making consensus difficult, and now cooperation with radical parties is increasingly necessary.

The debate over whether proportional systems are good for a country is a separate topic, but the latest Dutch elections are an example of just how flawed a proportional system can be. One could say that in Britain the situation has an extra layer of relevance due to ongoing discussion of us potentially transitioning to a proportional system, with the Labour Party undergoing its internal debate. Because this case of extremely lengthy coalition negotiations will be an example of why many are still so averse to proportional systems.

To look at the flaws of proportionality we only need to look at other systems, and for closeness let’s compare it to Britain’s system, first-past-the-post (FPTP). Under FPTP, every person only has one vote and it’s winner takes all, meaning that a candidate doesn’t at minimum need a majority (50% +1) in a constituency. However, this does mean that parties nationally need to have a broad appeal making sure they please as many people as possible. We see this with every major party in countries that use FPTP or something similar, and in countries that use proportionality, it just doesn’t happen. This means that disruptive parties or parties that capitalise on single issues and/or are difficult to work with end up getting into parliaments.

The second major flaw is that the diverse array of parties that comes with proportional systems will make some coalitions practically impossible, and it means the only solution might be a snap election, tiring voters and potentially not even leading to resolution. Following from this electoral system, governments in power are often in a visionless and powerless state in regards to major policy, meaning voters who voted for a vision won’t get it, at least for a good while.

The third flaw is that voters are likely to see the issues they voted for be thrown on the back burner due to the constant need for coalitional compromises. It means that portions of agendas and manifestos are often left behind for the sake of governance. For example, when the progressive and social liberal D66 entered into a coalition that consisted of two socially conservative parties, their priorities had to be paused. Now voters might be understanding, but many might be understandably frustrated at the fact that each election cycle the policies they wish to be passed might not even be addressed. This used to not be a major problem, as proportional systems at least gave a variety of parties a chance at having partial success in achieving their goals. But as politics become increasingly polarised, ideologies on the opposite ends of the spectrum are having to cooperate, meaning fewer goals are achieved due to the lack of common ground.

It must be said that, despite the aforementioned flaws, we shouldn’t completely turn away from proportionality. Much of Europe may struggle with it, but it has allowed for a great amount of cooperation and prevented the dominance of single ideologies. One can always say, it’s just not correct to have parties obtain less than 50% of the vote and control 100% of power, of which we saw an egregious example during the 2015 general election in the UK.

The reason why these problems are so important is that proportionality must be utilised properly and carefully. Thresholds are necessary to prevent the entrance of fringe parties that are superfluous to government formation or irrelevant in national terms, and voters must be more conscious of how the system functions. CGP Grey once talked of how the cost of perfection is infinite, and the cost for improving our systems of voting and government will be infinite as well. Yet, at the end of the day, for the sake of what’s right, we must take that leap in bettering democracy.