citizen participation and democracy in the netherlands
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [Queen Mary, University of London]On: 04 October 2014, At: 03:37Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK
DemocratizationPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fdem20
Citizen participation anddemocracy in the NetherlandsDr Ank M. B. Michels aa Utrecht School of Governance , Universiteit Utrecht ,the NetherlandsPublished online: 24 Jan 2007.
To cite this article: Dr Ank M. B. Michels (2006) Citizen participation and democracy inthe Netherlands, Democratization, 13:02, 323-339, DOI: 10.1080/13510340500524067
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13510340500524067
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressedin this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content shouldnot be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
en M
ary,
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
ondo
n] a
t 03:
37 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
Citizen Participation and Democracy in theNetherlands
ANK M. B. MICHELS
Although citizen participation is regarded widely as vital to democracy, some wariness mayalso be observed towards it in cases where democracy is equated with representative democ-racy. This article investigates the dominant view of the Dutch political–administrative and aca-demic elites on the meaning of participation with respect to the quality of democracy. Theanalysis shows that various forms of participation that might improve the quality of democracyhave been discussed in recent years, without, however, subjecting either the existing politicalinstitutions or the traditional hierarchical approach to policymaking to any form of criticalreview. Citizen participation is seen mainly as an instrument to strengthen and support theway representative democracy now works. Although citizen participation is thought to encom-pass more than merely voting in elections, participation is not seen as an essential feature ofdemocracy, but at best, as an instrument to improve the current functioning of representativedemocracy.
Key words: participation; democracy; Netherlands
Introduction
One of the main issues in democratic thought is the role that citizen participation
should play in a democracy. Students of political theory have written very extensively
on this subject, formulating various views on what the role of citizen participation
should be. Citizen participation may be seen as vital to democracy, but may also
be regarded with less favour when democracy is equated with representative
democracy.
Ideas of democracy are always contested, even in the established democracies
such as the Netherlands. This article concentrates on the Dutch debate on partici-
pation and democracy. The focus is on the political–administrative and the academic
elites. Despite the large interest of empirical political science in democratic attitudes
and opinions during the past decades, the focus of this type of research is very much
on public attitudes and opinions.1 Less attention has been devoted to the conceptions
of democracy among the elites. Moreover, studies in this field have tended to concen-
trate on the attitudes of bureaucratic elites and leave out the conceptions and
arguments of politicians and (political) scientists.2 Relevant empirical studies that
focus particularly on the view of the elite with respect to the meaning of participation
to democracy are absent.
Dr Ank Michels is Assistant Professor at the Utrecht School of Governance, Universiteit Utrecht, theNetherlands.
Democratization, Vol.13, No.2, April 2006, pp.323–339ISSN 1351-0347 print=1743-890X onlineDOI: 10.1080=13510340500524067 # 2006 Taylor & Francis
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
en M
ary,
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
ondo
n] a
t 03:
37 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
This article examines how far the normative views on participation and democ-
racy of the elites reflect the views on participation as formulated in political
theory. This research centred on the following questions: what role has Dutch
thinking on democracy attributed to citizen participation; and what is the meaning
of participation with respect to the quality of democracy?
The first section presents two different views on participation and democracy. One
sees citizen participation as of only limited importance to democracy; the other claims
citizen participation is an essential feature of democracy. The second part of this
article investigates the Dutch perspective on the meaning of citizen participation
for democracy. It starts with a global overview of the actual role of citizen partici-
pation in the Netherlands in the past few decades. It then examines the contemporary
political–administrative and academic discourse on this issue, before concluding
with a summary of the main characteristics of the Dutch view on citizen participation
and democracy.
Views on Participation
In Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1942),3 Joseph Schumpeter defended the
view that citizen participation is not essential to democracy and should be limited
to voting for leaders. This view is in sharp contrast with the ideas of Jean-Jacques
Rousseau. In Du Contrat Social (1762),4 Rousseau argued that the individual partici-
pation of each citizen in political decision-making is essential. In his view, citizens
become public citizens through participation. Schumpeter and Rousseau represent
two very different schools of thought on the role of participation in democracy. In
the first view, participation plays only a limited role. In the second view, citizen
participation constitutes an essential element of democracy.
Schumpeter is the main representative of the former view. In answer to the, in his
view, unrealistic classical doctrine of democracy, he formulated his own, more ‘rea-
listic’, definition of democracy. Schumpeter states: ‘The democratic method is that
institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals
acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people’s
vote’.5 According to this definition, the most essential feature of democracy is the
competition for leadership. The leaders must take the lead in the political and
decision-making process. Hence, democracy is first and foremost a process that
takes place among leaders.
In Schumpeter’s opinion, citizens should play a very limited role in the political
process, voting apart. In Dahl’s writings, too, much is made of the central role of elec-
tions in any democratic system. In A Preface to Democratic Theory (1956),6 he pre-
sents what he feels to be a more realistic theory of democracy than the theory of
populist democracy, which tells us nothing about the real world.7 Dahl searched
for the conditions that would be necessary and sufficient for maximizing democracy
in the real world.8 This could be achieved by maximizing both popular sovereignty
and political equality. He termed a political system in which these conditions exist
to a relatively high degree a polyarchy. In Dahl’s theory, elections play a central
role in maximizing democracy. Through elections, voters can make their choice for
324 DEMOCRATIZATION
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
en M
ary,
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
ondo
n] a
t 03:
37 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
alternatives (leaders or policies) heard. The alternative with the greatest number of
votes is declared the winning choice, and will displace the alternatives with fewer
votes. The orders of elected officials will be executed.9
Thus political participation is considered to have an instrumental function in the
official political process; it may lead to a change of political leadership and policy
programmes. In Schumpeter’s words, the role of the people is to produce a govern-
ment.10 Voters must understand that, once they have elected their leader, political
action is the political leaders’ business and not theirs.11
Massive political participation is regarded as undesirable and even dangerous in
this view. Schumpeter contended that most political issues were too remote from the
daily lives of ordinary people for them to be capable of making sound judgements
about opinions, policies and ideologies. Dahl, too, argued that an upsurge in the par-
ticipation of the populace could be dangerous, because it would lead to an increase in
political activity among the lower socio-economic classes. As these classes tend in
general toward more authoritarian ideas, their participation in politics could lead to
a decline in consensus about the basic norms of democracy.12 Sartori took this argu-
ment one step further. He feared that massive participation of the (common) people in
the political process would lead to totalitarianism. Hence, political activity of the
people should be minimized. The people should react, not act.13
In contrast to these theories that encourage only a very limited role for the partici-
pation of ordinary citizens in the political process, with electoral competition for
votes being the main focus, are theories that place much more weight on participation.
Here Rousseau is a central figure, for 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 Du Contrat Social
Rousseau sketched a political system in which the citizens decide to be free by
making the laws that rule them.14 The social contract constitutes the basis of this pol-
itical system. Under this contract, individuals abstain from their own desires and
decide to work together to give shape to policies and rules.15 As a consequence,
people are ruled by self-imposed regulations. Thus, participation in the political
process ensures freedom for everyone. Rousseau saw the rules and policies that
were created by cooperating citizens as an expression of the general will, which
differed from the will of all. The general will is always right, because it expresses
a policy that is acceptable to all.
The behaviour of individual citizens is also affected by the social contract, as it
forces citizens to act in a fair way and to be public, as well as private, citizens.
They learn that they have to take more into account than just their own private
interests.16
So for Rousseau, as well as for other theorists on participatory democracy, partici-
pation is more than voting in elections. It covers every aspect of participation in pol-
itical decision-making. Modern theorists such as Pateman stress that participation
should not be limited to the political arena, but should also encompass such areas
as the workplace.17 Thus, the participatory theory of democracy views democracy
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN THE NETHERLANDS 325
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
en M
ary,
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
ondo
n] a
t 03:
37 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
first and foremost as the people’s business; citizens are the central agents, not the
political leaders.
In this latter view on democracy, participation plays much more of an expressive
role than in the first view. Participation is regarded as a value in itself and is not aimed
merely at producing a government. Substantial participation is therefore desirable.
For individual citizens it is a way of expressing that they consider themselves to be
a part of the political system. The focus is not on individual interests but on the
collective interest (the general will, in Rousseau’s terms).
From these theories on participatory democracy, three functions of participation
can be distinguished. The first is the educative function: participation contributes to
personal growth in making citizens public citizens. In Representative Government
(1861)18 John Stuart Mill, like Rousseau, stressed the role of participation in
making people public-oriented citizens. The best place to learn democracy, in
Mill’s view, is through participation at the local level. A second function of partici-
patory democracy is the integrative function. Participation contributes to people’s
feeling that they belong to their community. Finally, participatory democracy
ensures good government; as mentioned previously for Rousseau, participation
plays an important role in producing and implementing laws and rules that are accep-
table to all. In addition, participation in different areas makes citizens better able to
make political decisions and understand them at the national level.19
The two main views are summarized in Table 1. It could be argued that the differ-
ences between the two are not as fundamental as they might be. Participation always
has an instrumental function. In the participatory view on democracy, however,
participation is more than just an instrument. The intention and purpose differ.
According to the second view, democracy is regarded as an ideal and not primarily
as a method.
Finally, an interesting, relatively new strand in democratic theory is the delibera-
tive model of democracy. The core of the deliberative view on democracy is that par-
ticipants in the democratic process discuss with each other problems and proposed
solutions to these problems.20 The essential elements of the conception of democracy
are free public reasoning and mutual respect. It is not easy to link the deliberative
view of democracy to either one of the two traditions described. In deliberative
TABLE 1
TWO VIEWS ON POLITICAL PARTICIPATION AND DEMOCRACY
Participation plays only a marginal role Participation is an essential feature of democracy
Representative democracy Participatory democracyThe focus is on political leaders The focus is on citizensParticipation is instrumental Participation is expressiveParticipation has no educative or social
functionsParticipation has both educative and social functions
No relation between participation and goodgovernment
Participation is a way of ensuring good government
Massive participation is not desirable Massive participation is desirableSchumpeter, Dahl, Sartori Rousseau, J. S. Mill, Pateman
326 DEMOCRATIZATION
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
en M
ary,
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
ondo
n] a
t 03:
37 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
democracy theories the emphasis is more on the democratic process: no matter how
many people participate, who participates, and where participation takes place, the
process of coming to decisions can only be valued as democratic if it meets the criteria
of deliberation. Thus, the deliberative conception appears to downgrade the import-
ance of the participation debate in democratic theory. However, in pointing to the
more expressive elements of participation the deliberative model is closer to the
participatory view on democracy.
Citizen Participation in Recent Dutch Political History – an Overview
This section presents an overview of the role citizen participation has played in the
Netherlands in recent decades. Attention will be paid to the views on citizen partici-
pation that were held by the political elites, and to the role ordinary citizens played in
the political process
The Era of ‘Pillarization’: 1945–65
Dutch society in 1945–65 was a society of tightly organized subcultures of mino-
rities, which were organized along a religious and a socio-economic dimension.
The religious dimension was at the heart of the divisions into a Catholic pillar, a
Protestant pillar and a secular pillar (called the ‘algemene zuil’, or general pillar).
Of these groups, the Catholics constituted the largest subculture, absorbing approxi-
mately 40 per cent of the population. The secular pillar comprised both non-religious
people and lapsed Christians. Besides the religious dimension, the socio-economic
dimension played a crucial part and divided the secular pillar into two subpillars: a
liberal pillar and a socialist pillar. ‘Pillarization’ structured political parties, but
also trade unions, hospitals, schools and leisure activities. Nearly every aspect of
social life took place within these pillars. There was hardly any social interaction
between the people belonging to the different pillars.
A question that intrigued many scholars is why, despite social heterogeneity,
Dutch democracy remained so stable. According to Lijphart, the stability of the
Dutch political system during the era of pillarization can be explained by the so-
called politics of accommodation at the elite level.21 Whereas Dutch society was
strongly segmented and organized into separate pillars at the mass level, the elites
of the pillars were permanently looking for ways to cooperate. To make cooperation
possible, the elites agreed on a number of ‘rules of the game’.22 These rules included
the agreement to disagree, the rule of proportionality (for example, proportional dis-
tribution of the seats in parliament, of subsidies to schools and housing associations,
and of broadcasting time) and depolitization in decision-making (technical arguments
were preferred to political dispute). Above all, they agreed on the rule to consider
politics not as a game, but as serious business. ‘The attitude that doctrinal disputes
should not stand in the way of getting the work done’23 contributed to the stability
of Dutch politics.
In this era, Dutch citizens’ political attitudes could be characterized by passivity.
They accepted the authority of the elites. This passivity and allegiance to the pillars’
elites can partly be explained by the dominance of the elites and the pillarized
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN THE NETHERLANDS 327
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
en M
ary,
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
ondo
n] a
t 03:
37 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
organizations at the time, but was also due to the political attitude of the Dutch
in general. According to Daalder, the Dutch attitude towards authority can be
characterized as a mixture of deference and indifference.24
Thus, political participation was mainly the privilege of the elites and took place
in the ‘pillarized’ social organizations in business, education, health care and housing.
‘Depillarization’ and Increasing Participation: 1965–85
The era of pillarization came to an end 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 proportion of people who still felt a strong loyalty to the pillar
in which they had been raised was declining rapidly. Also, from the early 1970s
onwards, organizations that had once been the strongholds of the different subcultures
began to merge. Examples are the Catholic and socialist trade unions that merged into
FNV (Federation of Dutch Trade Unions) and the Catholic and Protestant parties that
merged into one political party, CDA (Christian Democratic Appeal). Moreover, new
political parties, such as D’66, came on the scene.
‘Depillarization’ put a provisional end to the politics of accommodation. This
development took place against the backdrop of a broader movement for democrati-
zation, anti-traditionalism and resistance to authority that originated from the youth
cultures of western European cities. The increase in the level of education and the
role of television are often mentioned as relevant factors explaining the movement
for democratization.
As a result of the movement for democratization and anti-traditionalism new
forms of participation arose outside the official political arena. Single-issue action
groups organized mass demonstrations or occupied public buildings in an attempt
to influence politics. New social movements such as the women’s movement, squat-
ters, environmentalists and the anti-nuclear movement all made their views heard
through extra-parliamentary actions. However, although the number of citizens that
took part in these non-traditional forms of political participation was increasing stea-
dily in the 1970s and 1980s, participation was to a large extent still the privilege of
highly educated men between 30 and 49 years of age.25
While ever more citizens turned out on the streets and made their voices heard
through non-traditional forms of participation, the political elites still favoured politi-
cal participation only by verbal action. They remained wary of citizen participation.
In practice, the opportunities for citizens to influence politics and policies remained
limited to participation after the government had taken its own decisions.
1985–2004: Closing the Gap between Political Authorities and Citizens?
Since the second half of the 1980s, concern has been growing among politicians about
a widening gap with the public. Developments triggering this shift have been, first, the
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 2000), especially in the larger
cities. Second, an increasing number of local political parties are taking part in the
328 DEMOCRATIZATION
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
en M
ary,
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
ondo
n] a
t 03:
37 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
elections for the local councils. Other factors worrying the political elite have been a
slight decrease in voter turnout and a substantial decline in the membership of
political parties.
These developments can be explained partly by sentiments directed against the
political elites and politics in general. However, not all criticism is directed against
politics itself and is voiced in anti-establishment votes. There are also people who cri-
ticize specific elements of the political system. Democratic liberals and left-wing
oriented voters, in particular, claim that citizens have too little power to influence
the political and policymaking processes. As a solution to this problem, they advocate
reforming the political system. Although several constitutional reforms have been
proposed all were meant to decrease the gap between politicians and citizens.
Constitutional reforms had already been proposed in the 1960s and the 1970s, but
these failed to secure the required political support at the time.
Changes have also taken place in the policymaking process. Although the
Netherlands has a strong tradition of neo-corporatist policymaking and trade
unions and employers’ associations have engaged in centralized bargaining with
the government in the Social and Economic Council (Sociaal Economische Raad
or SER), top-down policymaking and implementation were dominant in the 1970s
and 1980s. This began to change in the course of the 1980s. First, citizens, social
organizations and companies were becoming increasingly involved in defining
policy problems, in seeking policy solutions and in policy implementation. A wide
variety of national and subnational practices with interactive policymaking,
public–private partnerships and policy-networks has emerged. Second, towns, hospi-
tals, schools and housing organizations were granted more authority to determine
their own policies. Apart from ideological reasons, the wish to cut government expen-
diture was also responsible for these developments; and third, government organiz-
ations paid increasing attention to their transparency and to their accountability
towards citizens and organizations regarding their policies and outputs.
It is obvious that the opportunities for citizen participation in political and policy
processes have substantially increased in the past few decades. However, this does not
mean that the gap between the political authorities and the people has been closed.
Citizens increasingly expect government to solve their problems and sometimes
even seem to be less satisfied with government efforts than ever before.26
Turning from the global overview of the role citizen participation has played in
the past six decades, the following sections introduce the contemporary political–
administrative and academic discourse on the subject. The main actors in the
political–administrative discourse are the government, governmental advisory
bodies and political parties and in the academic discourse they are scholars in
public administration and political and social science. The central question focuses
on how important citizen participation is deemed to be for democracy. Also,
answers are sought to the question of how the various forms of participation that
play a role in the discussion could contribute to democracy.
A comprehensive review of relevant documents was carried out to determine the
mainstream of thought on participation and democracy. For the political–administrative
discourse, these included election manifestos, ministerial reports and reports by
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN THE NETHERLANDS 329
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
en M
ary,
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
ondo
n] a
t 03:
37 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
advisory bodies.27 For the academic discourse it included books and journal articles
on public administration and political and social science.28 The contents were
reviewed for their comments on the meaning of participation for the quality of democ-
racy. The documents were then classified into categories of subjects and their position
summarized.
The Political and Administrative Discourse
Citizen participation is an issue that is often discussed in the political and administra-
tive discourse. However it tends to focus mainly on one subject – constitutional
reform – with rather less attention being given also to interactive policymaking,
information and communication technologies (ICTs), and civil society.
Constitutional Reform
The dominant idea underlying the discussion is that the way democracy functions cur-
rently in the Netherlands exhibits a number of shortcomings. Citizens should be
involved more directly in political decision-making. To attain this goal, several
proposals for constitutional reform have been made.
The debate focuses on the direct election of mayors, the reform of the electoral
system and the referendum. In 2003 the government submitted detailed proposals
for the direct election of the mayor by voters in local elections.29 The main issue
under debate is how much power should be granted to the directly elected mayor.
However, as a result of the rejection of the proposal for a directly elected mayor
by the First Chamber (Senate) in March 2005 (which almost led to the fall of the
cabinet), the introduction of the elected mayor has again been postponed. In addition,
the government has developed plans to reform the electoral system into a system that
is in many respects similar to the German electoral system.30 Although the details of
the plans have come in for harsh criticism, the main lines of the proposals have
attracted broad support among politicians.
Another issue is the referendum. Ideas have been developed about the introduc-
tion of national decisive referendums and of granting the power of initiative to the
people. These proposals, however, have not received wide support and are favoured
by D66 (democratic liberals) and left-wing parties only.
So, only small reforms of the existing representative system have been proposed.
Proposals for more decisive instruments of citizen participation meet with strong
objections from politicians who seem afraid of losing power.
Interactive Policymaking
In an interactive policymaking process, citizens and social organizations take up an
active role in the policy process at an early stage in order to reach a joint decision.
In the past few decades, a large number of experiments with interactive policymaking
have been introduced – mainly at the local level but also at the national level – that
focus on the development of city centres, the revitalization of old neighbourhoods and
the construction of public works. There is, however, much variation in what interac-
tive policymaking processes actually mean. In some cases, citizens and organizations
330 DEMOCRATIZATION
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
en M
ary,
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
ondo
n] a
t 03:
37 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
are asked to contribute to the formulation and solution of the policy problem from the
first stages of the process onwards. In other cases, however, citizens’ influence
remains marginal. For instance, they may be allowed to choose only between a set
of already clear-cut policy proposals. Whatever the design of the interactive policy-
making process, in all cases it is the (local) government that takes the initiative and
leads the process. The actual process is usually carried out under the supervision of
civil servants.
Although a large number of experiments with interactive policymaking have been
staged and a regular exchange of ideas and experiences has taken place,31 politicians
show very little interest in interactive policymaking as an instrument for improving
democracy.32 Most politicians are even sceptical about interactive policymaking.
They fear that it will lead to the erosion of the primacy of representative democratic
institutions. One of the governmental advisory organizations also points to tension
between citizen participation through interactive policymaking and representative
democracy.33 Put differently, participation in interactive policymaking could
strengthen the way representative democracy is working now, but only under the con-
dition that government and political representatives play a guiding role in the process.
Information and Communication Technologies
In recent years, both organizations and individual citizens have used information and
communication technology on an unprecedented scale. The possible applications of
ICTs have also increased dramatically. These developments have raised the question
of whether, and how, ICTs could contribute to a more vital democracy.
The government asked various advisory bodies and boards for advice. The overall
conclusion, supported by the government, is that ICT applications offer many oppor-
tunities for improving democracy.34 First of all, ICTs could improve the policymak-
ing process and its quality. Through public forums on the internet, citizens could be
asked to participate in discussions of policy problems and to come up with solutions.
This kind of participation might contribute to an increase in citizen involvement with
the problem at hand and with the final decision on how to solve it. Second, ICT appli-
cations make it technically possible to introduce electronic voting. This might
increase voter turnout; and third, ICT could make it easier for citizens to have a
direct say in the improvement of their environment. Through meeting points on the
internet, citizens, organizations and local governments could exchange information,
ideas and services. Whereas the first two possibilities emphasize the support ICT
might lend to existing representative democratic processes, this third possibility
represents a stronger bottom-up perspective.
Civil Society
In the Netherlands private organizations that perform public functions, such as
schools and hospitals, have always enjoyed a large extent of autonomy. One of the
central themes in the political and administrative debate on participation and democ-
racy is the role that civil society ought to play in this context. In fact, the debate
centres on two types of issues. The first is the issue of autonomy. The mainstream
position held by politicians and public officials is that government interference in
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN THE NETHERLANDS 331
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
en M
ary,
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
ondo
n] a
t 03:
37 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
schools, hospitals and other private organizations with public functions should be
limited to the minimum. In this view, the ability of society to organize itself
should be encouraged.35 The recent cabinet position on (a different) public service
and various reports from governmental advisory bodies also echo this view.36 The
argument for less government interference does not show a clear relation with any
of the theoretical views on participation and democracy.
In certain, mainly left-libertarian circles the emphasis is not so much on autonomy
and restrictions to government interference, as on opportunities for citizens to wield
power from below. This view clearly reflects the participatory view on democracy.
Opportunities for more political power would include increased employee, pupil
and student participation, a greater say in business affairs for shareholders, more
power to patients’ councils and more citizen involvement through participation in
voluntary organizations and non-profit organizations. The idea that citizens should
be given more opportunities to wield power from below was also one of the points
of departure of the government’s policy on the large cities.37 In the 1998 coalition
agreement, citizen participation at the local level was called one of the key policy
issues. Citizen initiatives, in particular at the level of the neighbourhood, should be
encouraged from below.
To conclude, the Dutch political and administrative elites adhere to the view that
citizen participation is important for the quality of democracy. However, their
interpretation of the concept of citizen participation is rather narrow. The political
and administrative discourse focuses mainly on constitutional reform. Very modest
reforms of the existing representative system are proposed. In so far as citizen partici-
pation is deemed important, it is not meant to lead to some form of direct democracy,
but mainly to strengthen the way representative democracy now works. Attempts to
encourage initiatives from below remain rather limited. The role of participation
remains mainly an instrumental one, in the sense that the key objective is to influence
the political process. Furthermore, the dominant position is that, whatever form
citizen participation might take, it is the government that should take and keep the
initiative in policymaking.
The Academic Discourse
Turning to the academic discourse on participation and democracy in the Netherlands
the main question, once again, is how important citizen participation is deemed to be
for democracy. How various forms of participation could contribute to the quality of
democracy is a second point of inquiry.
The academic debate on citizen participation and democracy focuses on a number
of issues that can be categorized as follows: participation as a form of individual
behaviour, interactive policymaking, the value of information and communication
technology, citizenship and deliberation, and constitutional reform.
Participation as Individual Behaviour
A number of political and social scientists have been studying the participation of
individual citizens in politics. The political participation of individuals is considered
332 DEMOCRATIZATION
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
en M
ary,
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
ondo
n] a
t 03:
37 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
to be important for democracy. However, different views are taken over how individ-
ual participation could contribute to democracy. In addition, there is considerable
variation in the themes that have been studied.
A large group is particularly interested in voting behaviour and citizens’ political
involvement.38 Quantitative analyses are used to describe and explain changes in
individual voting behaviour. For most of these authors, elections are the central
element of the democratic method. In this view, the most important function of pol-
itical participation is an instrumental one. Citizens are considered first of all to be
voters. Nevertheless, other aspects of individual behaviour are also regarded as
important for democracy. Several authors stress the importance of citizens’ political
involvement for democracy.39 They emphasize that it is important that citizens know
about politics, are interested in politics and discuss political issues. However, they do
not claim that citizens should actively participate in political affairs. Active partici-
pation is not a necessary condition for democracy. According to these authors,
large-scale participation outside the official representative political institutions is
not desirable at all and could even lead to a weakening of the traditional political
institutions and eventually undermine representative democracy.40
Other authors focus their attention on participation in social organizations and
local neighbourhoods. Empirical research in this field identifies the positive effects
participation in social organizations may have on participation in the political
system.41 In these studies, the focus is again on the instrumental role of participation.
A different view on the meaning of participation, corresponding more with the
second, more enthusiastic general theory on participation, can be found in research
on social renewal in neighbourhoods. Here, citizen participation is deemed important
because it encourages ordinary citizens to formulate and find solutions to their own
problems.42
Interactive Policymaking
An important theme in recent years in the academic debate on citizen participation
and democracy, especially among scholars in public administration, is the topic of
interactive policymaking. Although a substantial part of the literature on this
subject is concerned with the managerial issue of how to organize an interactive pol-
icymaking process, other contributions do focus explicitly on the impact interactive
policymaking could have on democracy.43
One of the central questions raised by several authors is how citizen participation
in interactive policymaking relates to the primacy and political responsibility of the
elected democratic institutions. Most authors consider interactive policymaking to
be a valuable contribution to democracy, because it helps to close the gap between
political authorities and the citizenry and it broadens public support for policy
decisions. Although not always stated explicitly, the underlying assumption seems
to be that cooperation between citizens and the government in interactive policy-
making is valuable as long as politicians can continue to do their work and make
the final decisions. Interactive policymaking could thus strengthen the working of
representative democracy.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN THE NETHERLANDS 333
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
en M
ary,
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
ondo
n] a
t 03:
37 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
Only few authors stress the aspect of dialogue and interaction between govern-
ment officials and citizens. Interactive policymaking might contribute to a strong par-
ticipatory democracy, in the sense that a face-to-face dialogue between government
officials and citizens fosters citizenship and educates citizens in the affairs of the
state.44
Information and Communication Technology
Because of the substantial increase in the use of information and communication tech-
nology, many academics working in the field of public administration and political
science have posed explicitly the question as to what contribution ICTs could
make to democracy. In the answers to this question, a distinction can be made
between techno-pessimists and techno-optimists.45
The techno-pessimists stress that ICTs will increase the power of the top of the
public administration at the expense of the political institutions and the citizens.46
Expert knowledge and expert systems will be the domain of civil servants and poli-
ticians; citizens do not have access to these fields. Finally, this will lead to an Orwel-
lian society in which ‘Big Brother’ will be controlling all aspects of human life (from
George Orwell’s novel 1984, published in 1949). The techno-optimists, on the other
hand, view the spread of ICTs as a contribution to a stronger democracy. They use
arguments from both theoretical views on participation and democracy. In their
view, public debates on the internet, citizen platforms and virtual communities
offer opportunities for a more responsive democracy. However, they also offer a
massive opportunity for active citizenship: for the further emancipation of individual
citizens and for the development of citizenship for all.47 Increased opportunities for
citizens to participate and a greater variety of types of participation will bring
direct democracy one step nearer.
Empirical studies on the use and effects of ICTs cast serious doubt over whether
the predictions of the techno-optimists will come true. So far, the conclusion seems to
be justified that ICTs tend to reinforce existing patterns in participation: the gap
between professional politicians and the politically active citizenry will narrow,
whereas the gap between professional politicians and passive citizens who are not
politically interested will increase.48
Citizenship and Deliberation
Two other, related, themes underlying the academic debate on citizen participation
and democracy are citizenship and deliberation. Both themes belong to the academic
domain of political theory. In contrast to the issues discussed above, citizenship and
deliberation are abstract normative concepts that can be used to value the possible
contributions that interactive policymaking or ICT can make to democracy.
Citizenship is a central concept for neo-republican authors, who claim that citi-
zenship forms the essence of democracy.49 People become citizens when they
govern themselves from time to time. By participating in public affairs citizens
become public citizens who create a public domain in which they can govern
themselves. Only if citizens participate in the public domain can a strong democracy
exist. This does not mean that every citizen must participate; it suffices that citizens
334 DEMOCRATIZATION
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
en M
ary,
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
ondo
n] a
t 03:
37 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
are given the opportunity to participate.50 Therefore, public debate should be held at
different places and should not be confined to traditional forums.
A somewhat related concept to citizenship is the concept of deliberation.51 Again,
citizen participation is deemed important for the quality of democracy, but here the
focus is more on the question of how to build new forms of political and governmental
institutions with room for deliberation (that is, free public reasoning among equals in
an atmosphere of mutual respect) between actors with different backgrounds.52 To a
certain extent, these new institutions already exist. For example, in interactive policy-
making processes, citizens and their associations have been given opportunities to
argue and exchange ideas with each other at different forums and in different insti-
tutional arrangements that are not linked to the traditional political institutions.
Constitutional Reform
Constitutional reform is predominantly the domain of jurists, although some issues
have also attracted the attention of academics in public administration. Several
issues are discussed in the literature, including the referendum, the direct election
of mayors and the reform of the electoral system.53 In general, the tone of the
discussion is positive but critical. The dominant view is that constitutional reforms
are inevitable and could contribute to the improvement of the quality of representa-
tive democracy. One should keep in mind, however, that some of the same jurists
participated in the committees that advised the government on constitutional
reform. Most of the criticism focuses on the details of the proposals for constitutional
reforms.
The issue most frequently discussed is the referendum. Most authors consider the
referendum to be a valuable tool in determining the general will, as a complement to
representation through the institutions of representative democracy.54 Other authors,
however, are not so optimistic and advance serious objections, one of the most being
that parliament and government are better able to weigh the different interests of
various stakeholders than the electorate can do in a referendum.55
To conclude, the academic debate on participation and democracy covers a wide
variety of themes. Most authors agree that participation is important for democracy.
The dominant view is that the primary function of participation should be an instru-
mental one. The main objective is to give citizens a greater say in the political
process. The goal is not to introduce direct democracy, but to strengthen the way
in which representative democracy is working. Few authors emphasize the expressive
function that participation may fulfil. In their view, participation is regarded as a value
in itself and is of crucial importance in becoming a public citizen. Citizenship and
dialogue are considered to be the essential elements of democracy.
Conclusion
This analysis of political–administrative and academic discourse in the Netherlands
showed that the main elements characterizing the Dutch view on the meaning of
citizen participation for democracy can be summarized as follows. First, the issue
of citizen participation has gradually gained importance since the end of the 1960s.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN THE NETHERLANDS 335
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
en M
ary,
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
ondo
n] a
t 03:
37 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
Second, various forms of participation that might improve the quality of democracy
have been discussed, including participation through constitutional reforms, the use
of ICTs in politics and policymaking and interactive policymaking. In general, the
existing political institutions and the traditional hierarchical way of policymaking
are not fundamentally criticized. Third, citizen participation is mainly seen as an
instrument to strengthen and support the way representative democracy now func-
tions. Fourth, the local or national government should take and keep the initiative
in policymaking. Initiatives ought to be taken from above. The process of involving
citizens in politics and policymaking should not lead to the erosion of the primacy of
the representative institutions. The central focus of thought is not on citizens, but on
the government. Fifth, the role of participation is mainly an instrumental one: the
main objective is to give citizens and their organizations a voice in the official politi-
cal process. Participation is not regarded as a value in itself, but is aimed merely at
producing a government. Sixth, for most, participation has no other functions.
Finally, massive participation is undesirable and could even be dangerous. Although
these canons make up the dominant view, some authors (academics in particular),
point to different, more expressive elements of participation and consider citizen
participation as essential to democracy.
The first section presented two contrasting overviews on participation and
democracy: one maintained that citizen participation is only of limited importance
to democracy; the other considers citizen participation as an essential feature of
democracy. From the above analysis it is clear that the Dutch view comes closest
to the first view. Although citizen participation is thought to encompass more than
just voting in elections, participation is not seen as an essential feature of democracy
but, at best, as an instrument to improve the current working of representative
democracy.
This interpretation of the role of citizen participation might have implications for
the future development of Dutch democracy and for the Dutch position on citizen
participation within the European Union. It may be expected that the Netherlands
will continue to harbour serious doubts about introducing far-reaching forms of
citizen participation. This expectation is confirmed by the laborious talks about
the introduction of national referendums in the Netherlands and by a report of the
Dutch government that preceded the Dutch chairmanship of the European Union
in 2004.56 The report stated that the main goal of involving citizens in policymaking
and policy-implementation is to create support and consensus for policy decisions.
Again, participation was not seen as an essential feature of democracy but, at best,
as an instrument to improve the way representative democracy currently works.
Also the momentary enthusiasm for referenda of some politicians after the rejection
of the European constitution by 63 per cent of the votes in June 2005 in a once-only
national referendum does not seem to suggest a fundamental change in attitude
towards citizen participation. The Netherlands may or may not be representative,
although evidence from the referendum experiences in Switzerland and from experi-
ences with political participation and self-governance in Denmark suggest that
citizen participation is more accepted as an essential feature of democracy there
than in the Netherlands.57
336 DEMOCRATIZATION
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
en M
ary,
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
ondo
n] a
t 03:
37 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
NOTES
1. See, for example Gabriel A. Almond and Sidney Verba, The Civic Culture: Political Attitudesand Democracy in Five Nations (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1963); M. Kent Jennings,Continuities in Political Action. A Longitudinal Study of Political Orientations in Three WesternDemocracies (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1990); Hans-Dieter Klingemann and Dieter Fuchs (eds), Citizensand the State (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995).
2. Liesbet Hooghe, The European Commission and the Integration of Europe. Images of Governance(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001); Edward C. Page and Vincent Wright, BureaucraticElites in Western European States (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).
3. First published in 1942. Joseph A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (New York:Harper & Row, 1976).
4. First published in 1762. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Het Maatschappelijk Verdrag of Beginselen der Staat-sinrichting (Du Contrat Social) (Tilburg: Tilburg University Press, 1988).
5. Schumpeter (note 3), p. 269.6. Robert A. Dahl, A Preface to Democratic Theory (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1956).
In some of his other works Dahl also shows an interest in more participatory ideas of democracy, forexample ideas on workplace democracy in A Preface to Economic Democracy (Berkeley, CA: Univer-sity or California Press, 1985), which have influenced thinking on participatory democracy.
7. Dahl, A Preface to Democratic Theory (note 6), p. 51.8. Ibid., p. 64.9. Ibid., p. 84.
10. Schumpeter (note 3), p. 269.11. Ibid., p. 295.12. Dahl, A Preface to Democratic Theory (note 6), p. 89.13. Giovanni Sartori, Democratic Theory (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1962), p. 77.14. Rousseau (note 4), pp. 27–30.15. Ibid., pp. 10–12.16. Ibid., pp. 14–15.17. Carole Pateman, Participation and Democratic Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1970).18. First published in 1861. John Stuart Mill, ‘Representative Government’, in Three Essays (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1975).19. Pateman (note 17), p. 110.20. Jon Elster (ed.), Deliberative Democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998); Amy
Gutmann and Dennis Thompson, Why Deliberative Democracy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UniversityPress, 2004); James S. Fishkin and Peter Laslett (eds), ‘Philosophy, Politics & Society, SpecialIssue, Debating Deliberative Democracy’, Political Philosophy, Vol. 10, No. 2 (2002).
21. Arend Lijphart, Verzuiling, Pacificatie en Kentering in de Nederlandse Politiek (Amsterdam: J. H. DeBussy, 1979), p. 99.
22. Ibid., pp. 116–30.23. A. D. Robinson, Dutch Organised Agriculture in International Politics (’s-Gravenhage: Nijhoff, 1961),
p. 37.24. Hans Daalder, ‘The Netherlands: Opposition in a Segmented Society’, in Robert A. Dahl (ed.),
Political Oppositions in Western Democracies (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1966), pp.188–236.
25. Jan W. van Deth and Jan C. P. M Vis, Regeren in Nederland. Het Politieke enBestuurlijke Bestel inVergelijkend Perspectief (Assen: Van Gorcum, 2000), pp. 148–50.
26. Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau, De Sociale Staat van Nederland (Den Haag, 2003), pp. 302–5.27. All documents between 2000 and 2003 that deal with the issue of citizen participation and democracy
are included in the analysis. The election manifestos studied date from 2003. In case an earlier report(of the late 1990s) was referred to in a later report and formed the basis for the ideas in this later report,the earlier one was included in the analysis.
28. Books and articles on the subject of participation and democracy between 1999 and 2003 are includedin the analysis. The selection comprised the fields of political science, political theory, social science,and public administration. Both normative and empirical studies are included.
29. Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijkrelaties, Verkennende Notitie Invoering DirectGekozen Burgemeester (Den Haag, 2003); Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijkrelaties,Hoofdlijnen Notitie Direct Gekozen Burgemeester (Den Haag, 2003).
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN THE NETHERLANDS 337
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
en M
ary,
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
ondo
n] a
t 03:
37 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
30. Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijkrelaties, Nota Wijziging Kiesstelsel (Den Haag,1999).
31. Imi, X-pin, Samenleving en Politiek, Naar Nieuwe Verbindingen (Den Haag, 2003); Ministerie vanBinnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijkrelaties, Handreiking Binnengemeentelijke Decentralisatie (DenHaag, 2002).
32. This issue was mentioned only in the 2003 election manifestos of LPF (List Pim Fortuyn) and PvdA(Labour Party).
33. Raad voor het Openbaar Bestuur, Primaat in de Polder. Nieuwe Verbindingen Tussen Politiek enSamenleving (Den Haag, 2002).
34. Commissie ICT en de Stad, ICT en de Stad. Burgers Verbonden (Den Haag, 2000); Commissie ICT enOverheid, Burger in de Informatiesamenleving. De Noodzaak van Institutionele Innovatie (Den Haag,2001); Commissie Toekomst Overheidscommunicatie, In dienst van de democratie (Den Haag, 2001);Raad voor het Openbaar Bestuur, De Grenzen van de Internetdemocratie (Den Haag, 1998); Ministerievan Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijkrelaties, Contract met de Toekomst. Een Visie op deElektronische Relatie Overheid-burger (Den Haag, 2000).
35. See various election manifestos 2003.36. Kabinet Balkenende, Kabinetsvisie ‘Andere Overheid’ (Den Haag, 2003); Raad voor Maatschappelijke
Ontwikkeling, Aansprekend Burgerschap (Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers, 2000); Raad voor Maatschappe-lijke Ontwikkeling, Ongekende Aanknopingspunten (Den Haag: Sdu uitgevers, 2002); Raad voorMaatschappelijke Ontwikkeling, Bevrijdende Kaders (Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers, 2002).
37. Instituut voor Publiek en Politiek, Eindverslag Onderzoek Grotestedenbeleid. Participatie in hetPublieke Domein (Amsterdam, 2002).
38. Jacques Thomassen, Kees Aarts and Henk van der Kolk (eds), Politieke Veranderingen in Nederland1971-1998, Kiezers en de Smalle Marges van de Politiek (Den Haag: Sdu, 2000); Henk van der Kolk,Jacques Thomassen and Kees Aarts, ‘Actief, maar niet Geınteresseerd’, Openbaar Bestuur, Vol. 11,No. 2 (2001), pp. 2–7; P. Dekker, ‘Vijfentwintig Jaar Politieke Betrokkenheid en Participatie’, inA. E. Bronner (ed.), Recente Ontwikkelingen in het Marktonderzoek (Haarlem: De Vrieseborch,2000), pp. 159–74; Paul Dekker, ‘Sterke democraten, zwakkere democratie?’, Beleid en Maatschappij,Vol. 29, No. 2 (2002), pp. 55–66; Petrus Gerardus Castenmiller, De Levende Werkzaamheid. PolitiekeBetrokkenheid van Burgers bij het Lokaal Bestuur (Den Haag: VNG uitgeverij, 2001).
39. Van Deth and Vis (note 15).40. Dekker; Van der Kolk, Thomassen and Aarts (both note 38).41. Herman Lelieveldt, Wegen naar Macht. Politieke Participatie en Toegang van het Maatschappelijk
Middenveld op Lokaal Niveau (Amsterdam: Thela thesis, 1999).42. Sandra Kensen, Sturen op Variatie. Sociale Vernieuwing en de Deense Variant als Bronnen van
Inspiratie (Den Haag: VNG uitgeverij, 1999).43. F. Hendriks and P.W. Tops, Politiek en Interactief Bestuur. Interacties en Interpretaties Rond de
Ontwikkeling van het Nationaal Verkeers- en Vervoersplan (’s-Gravenhage: Elsevier, 2001);F. Hendriks and P.W. Tops, ‘Interactieve Beleidsvorming en Betekenisverlening’, Beleid enMaatschappij, Vol. 28, No. 2 (2001), pp. 106–19; Jurian Edelenbos and Rene Monnikhof, LokaleInteractieve Beleidsvorming (Utrecht: Lemma, 2001); J. Edelenbos, G. R. Teisman and M. Reuding,Interactieve Beleidsvorming als Sturingsopgave (Den Haag: InnovatieNetwerk Groene Ruimte enAgrocluster, 2001).
44. Anchrit Wille, ‘Citizen participation in interactive governance: Bringing the public back into the policyprocess’, Paper prepared for The 14th Annual Public Administration Theory Network Conference(Leiden, The Netherlands, June 2001).
45. A. Zuurmond, ‘Informatietechnologie: Democratisering of Technocratisering’, Beleid en Maatschap-pij, Vol. 23, No. 3 (1996), pp. 134–44; M. Bovens, De digitale republiek. Democratie en rechtsstaat inde informatiemaatschappij (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2003).
46. Zuurmond (note 45).47. P. H. A. Frissen, De Virtuele Staat. Politiek, Bestuur, Technologie: een Postmodern Verhaal (Schoon-
hoven: Academic Service, 1996); V. J. J. M. Bekkers, ‘Over Responsieve Democratie en DigitaleParticipatie’, Bestuurskunde, Vol. 10, No. 6 (2001), pp. 252–61.
48. Philip van Praag, ‘Geef mij de Ruimte’, Beleid en Maatschappij, Vol. 29, No. 2 (2002), pp. 81–91;Hetty van Kempen and Kees Brants, ‘Een Digitaal Onderonsje. Elektronische Democratie en PolitiekeParticipatie’, Beleid en Maatschappij, Vol. 29, No. 2 (2002), pp. 92–100; Jasper Ragetlie, ‘De DigitaleDemocratie: Stopdeveiling.nl.’, in Mark Bovens, Roger van Boxtel, Eugene Loos, Pauline Poland,Renovatie van de Rechtsstaat. Vijf Casus over de Invloed van ICT op Democratie en Recht (DenHaag: Boom Juridische uitgevers, 2002), pp. 45–61; Bovens, De Digitale Republiek.
338 DEMOCRATIZATION
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
en M
ary,
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
ondo
n] a
t 03:
37 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
49. Herman R. van Gunsteren, A Theory of Citizenship. Organizing Plurality in Contemporary Democra-cies (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1998); Willem Witteveen, De Denkbeeldige Staat. Voorstellingenvan Democratische Vernieuwing (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 200).
50. Van Gunsteren (note 49).51. M.A. Hajer, Politiek als Vormgeving (Amsterdam:Vossiuspers AUP, 2000); M. A. Hajer, ‘Naar een
Samengesteld Begrip van Democratie: of hoe aan Representatie Nieuwe Inhoud kan wordengegeven’, in G. M. A. van der Heijden and J. F. Schrijver).
52. Hajer, Politiek als vormgeving.53. D. J. Elzinga and H. G. Hoogers, ‘Political Representation in the Netherlands: On the Seeming Contrast
Between Representation and Direct Democracy’, in D. Elzinga, F. Goudappel and H. R. B. M.Kummeling (eds), Constitutionalism, Universalism and Democracy (Groningen: University Press,1999), pp. 31–53; Jan A. van Schagen and Henk R. B. M. Kummeling, The proposals for electoralreform in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands’, in Elzinga et al., pp. 1–29; J. A. van Schagen,‘Naar een Nieuw Kiesstelsel?’, Ars Aequi, Vol. 51, No. 5 (2001), pp. 326–31; M. C. Burkens, H. R.B. M. Kummeling, B. P. Vermeulen and R. J. G. M. Widdershoven, Beginselen van de DemocratischeRechtsstaat. Inleiding tot de Grondslagen van het Nederlandse Staats- en bestuursrecht. (Deventer:Tjeenk Willink, 2001); Alfons Dolle, ‘Referenda en het Gevaar van een langendemocratie’, OpenbaarBestuur, Vol. 11, No. 12 (2001), pp. 6–12; M. Boogers and P. W. Tops, ‘De Toor’n van Groningen.Over de Dynamiek van een Lokaal Referendum’, Bestuurskunde, Vol. 11, No. 5 (2002), pp. 207–14.
54. Elzinga and Hoogers (note 53).55. Dolle (note 53), pp. 6–12.56. Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijkrelaties, Burgerparticipatie: Inspiratiebron voor de
Europese Unie (Den Haag, 2003).57. Alexander H. Trechsel and Hanspeter Kriesi, ‘Switzerland: the Referendum and Initiative as a Centre-
piece of the Political System’, in Michael Gallagher and Vincenzo Uleri (eds), The Referendum Experi-ence in Europe (London: Macmillan, 1996), pp. 185–208; H. P. Bang and E. Sørensen, ‘The EverydayMaker: a New Challenge to Democratic Governance’, Administrative Theory & Praxis, Vol. 21, No. 3(1999), pp. 325–41.
Manuscript accepted for publication May 2005.
Address for correspondence: Ank M. B. Michels, Universiteit Utrecht, Utrecht School of Governance,Bijlhouwerstraat 6, 3511 ZC Utrecht, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN THE NETHERLANDS 339
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
en M
ary,
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
ondo
n] a
t 03:
37 0
4 O
ctob
er 2
014