International Law

HOW MANY POLITICIANS DO WE NEED IN THE NETHERLANDS PARLIAMENT?

By Karel.Frielink

150 + 75 members seems too much

The Dutch House of Representatives or lower house (?Tweede Kamer?) counts 150 members (MPs). Members of the Tweede Kamer receive an allowance for expenses for their work. This is called compensation (?schadeloosstelling?). 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?) counts 75 members. Members of the Eerste Kamer 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 one day a week. The Senate is concerned only with the broad outline of policy. It has a revising 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 can be abolished without this causing 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? left without a Senate. Just look at Denmark. Most of what the Senate is doing is just 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 eventually 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 must be to earn back the confidence of the voters.

Despite the many pressures on MPs, I suggest that the question be asked, time and again, whether a problem is truly a MPs responsibility. Maybe, the problem could 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 a member of the government, but they keep putting their hands on the steering wheel.

In my opinion, we don?t need such a large body: 75 MPs will do. Let?s not forget that they have a large staff, too. So there is no need for any fear that a smaller body lacks great diversity of expertise, viewpoints or knowledge. A smaller body would be fully competent to legislate. And an electoral threshold (?kiesdrempel?) would add to efficiency as well. A reform is needed, but I do not expect any support from the - majority of the - MPs or the Senate members. However, we should start with a debate within as well as outside parliament. I hope 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?. But when will it start?

Karel Frielink
Attorney (Lawyer) / Partner

Full post as published by Karel's Legal Blog on February 27, 2008 (boomark / email).