Impoverishment of the legislative power

That the impoverishment of the legislative branch in the Netherlands would ever be embodied by Minister David van Weel (Justice, VVD) was unimaginable until last week. He had been a bright spot in the cabinet last year. Unlike many colleagues within the (radical) right-wing coalition, Van Weel realized that power in the Netherlands doesn't come from the barrel of a gun, but that law and order have traditionally been a shared interest here.

Last week, it became clear that Van Weel, too, is not afraid to take matters into his own hands. With the recess approaching, he helped push a new law, which criminalizes assisting illegal aliens, through the House of Representatives with all sorts of procedural inconsistencies and verbal tricks. He hardly seemed bothered by it. While the decision-making process wasn't exactly "a beauty prize," Van Weel said afterward, "the result counts ."

I'm not concerned here with the much-debated question of whether "going underground" (as the PVV puts it) is a crime punishable by imprisonment if necessary, even though that's certainly not a minor issue . The main point is that Van Weel, at the critical moment in the House of Representatives, didn't dare stand up for himself or offer clear compromises, but instead continued to pander to parliament in a duplicitous way, trying to cobble together a majority at all costs. He clearly had no regard for a proper legislative process. For example, before the votes, the minister initially stated that the bill's text was of little value, because he wouldn't be able to implement it anyway due to capacity constraints at the police and judiciary, and then suddenly promised to temporarily shelve the offending article of the law so he could later request an advisory opinion from the Council of State.

That Van Weel stooped to this level—along with a majority of the House of Representatives, no less—demonstrates not only political opportunism. By subordinating the legislative process to a short-lived electoral tactic during the debate on a long-term amendment to the law—the law simply had to be finalized before the elections—he did a disservice to the separation of powers, that cornerstone of our system. In a parliamentary democracy, form and substance are, after all, two sides of the same coin. Anyone who turns this into a "quagmire," as Christian Union parliamentary leader Mirjam Bikker described the working methods of the governing coalition, contributes to the further deterioration of the rule of law in the Netherlands, partly because the end is not yet in sight.

If the Council of State allows itself to be subjected to retroactive advice, it is participating in the undermining of the government. If this body refuses to retroactively whitewash legislation, the radical right will argue that this unelected advisory body should be abolished. In both cases, the populists, who refuse to recognize the "trias politica" because the people speak with one voice through their leader, will have the upper hand. Without any effort on his part, Wilders was handed this double victory on a silver platter.

The VVD once consistently provided professionals for the Justice Department who, even when they stood for pure law and order , always maintained an eye for the necessary balance between ends and means. Minister Carel Polak (1967-1971), who coined the principle "democracy is not for the faint of heart," was the first and best liberal in that line.

If Van Weel doesn't retrace his steps, the VVD will break with its own tradition that the end doesn't justify the means. That would affect not only Dilan Yesilgöz's party, but the entire Netherlands.

Hubert Smeets is a journalist and historian. He writes a column here every other week.