HOW MANY POLITICIANS DO WE NEED IN THE NETHERLANDS PARLIAMENT?
150 + 75 members seems too much
The Dutch House of Representatives or Lower House (‘Tweede Kamer’) has 150 members (MPs). Members of the Lower House receive an allowance for expenses for their work. This is called a compensation. The amount of the compensation is € 83,398.32 per MP per year. They also receive a holiday allowance of 8% and an end of the year allowance in December. MPs are elected by the voters.
The Dutch Senate or upper house (‘Eerste Kamer’) has 75 members. Members of the Senate receive an allowance for expenses for their work. The amount of the compensation is approximately € 20,000 per member per year. Senate members are not elected directly by the voters. The voters elect the members of the Provincial Councils, who in turn elect the members of the Senate.
Members of the House of Representatives are full-time politicians, whereas members of the Senate are part-timers who often hold other positions as well. The Senate meets only once day a week. The Senate is concerned only with the broad outlines of policy and has a revisionary role in relation to draft legislation only. Its members do not have the right to amend bills. They can only vote on them and either accept or reject them.
There is no clear need for a Senate, although its existence can be understood from a historic perspective. In my opinion, the Senate could be abolished without any negative effect on the parliamentary democracy or the functioning of the House of Representatives. Some believe that the Senate safeguards and fosters the stability and quality of our parliamentary democracy. I don’t believe that to be true. There are enough ‘checks and balances’ without the Senate. Look at Denmark for example. Most of what the Senate does is merely duplicative.
Another issue is whether the House of Representatives should consist of 150 members. If approached in business terms: it is all about efficiency and downsizing. In business one cannot afford to hold on to activities, practices, divisions, or subsidiaries that have become outmoded, inefficient, and a financial drain on the company. The House of Representatives should focus on its core business. The goal should be to earn back the confidence of the voters.
In fact many MP’s are under undue pressure and I would suggest that the question be asked, time and again, whether a problem is truly an MPs responsibility. The problem could perhaps be better handled by local government or certain – private – organizations. MPs should stop micromanaging the entire society. They should focus on the broader picture. MPs are not members of the government, yet they keep grasping on the steering wheel.
In my opinion, we don’t need such a large body: 75 MPs would do. Let’s not forget that they have a large staff contingent, too. So there is no need for any fear that a smaller body would lack a diversity of expertise, points of view or knowledge. A smaller body would be fully competent to legislate; and an electoral threshold (‘kiesdrempel’) would add to the efficiency as well. Reform is needed, however I would not expect the – majority of – MPs or the members of the Senate to support this. A debate should be started however, both inside and outside parliament. Hopefully, this will lead to a new consensus and a more effective democracy. According to D66 in its 2002-2006 election program “Political renewal is never finished”. I pose the question however, when will it start?
Karel Frielink
Attorney (Lawyer) / Partner
