This is the third article in a series of six on the bankruptcy of democracy. The series was previously published on Commomsensetv in the late summer of 2020.
Given the recent developments in our country and the far-reaching plans of the current Hague regime, more and more people are waking up. As a truly independent news channel, Commonsensetv, together with dozens of other channels, shows the 'other side of the news'. News not colored by political correctness or political expediency. So if you belong to the category of people looking for the news behind the state-approved 'news', welcome to Commonsensetv!
THE BANKRUPTCY OF DEMOCRACY
This series substantiates why our democracy is definitively bankrupt. On the basis of facts, figures and research, the political apparatus is examined, analyzed step by step and weighed up for its democratic content. To be discussed:
- Article 1 - About the weakness and poverty trump† Are there reasons to indicate that our country is constantly struggling with failing administrators?
- Article 2 - The Myth of Voter Influence† How much is actually left of the much vaunted influence of the voter?
- Article 3 – On cadaver discipline and the representation of the people. How does parliament actually fulfill its constitutional legislative and supervisory task?
- Article 4 – The myth of the independent judge. The foundation of a democratic constitutional state stands or falls with an independent judiciary. How's that actually going?
- Article 5 – About citizens, administrators and corrupt administrative culture. How do governments actually deal with citizens in practice?
- Article 6 – On Democrats and Expertise. How could democracy be redesigned?
Part 3 – On cadaver discipline and failing control of the parliament
Part 1 substantiated why it is that we have substandard administrators and representatives of the people. With a maximum of only 2,6 candidates per political position, it is impossible to get good, skilled administrators and representatives to the political functions.
Part 2 shattered the myth of the democratic nature of elections. The voter has no influence on election campaigns, electoral lists, the interpretation of the election results and what consequences are attached to them by the parties. The voters also have no influence on the exclusion of certain coalition partners in advance or on the return of losing parties. And election promises disappear during coalition talks without voter consultation.
Now we look at the democratic content of the parliament, especially the House of Representatives.
The dual system
In our system there are three state powers; the legislative, administrative and judicial branches. Also known as the trias politica, these three are the brainchild of an enlightened French thinker from the early 1700s, Charles de Montesquieu.
He believed that power should always be divided so that no one (or a small group) would have all the power. Charles de Montesquieu was very strict; no private domination of one state power over another. De Montesquieu regarded even influence as swearing in the church. After all, such practices harm the principle of distributed power. He was influenced by the English philosopher John Locke who believed that the ruler should reflect the will of the people.
The legislative power consists of the administrators on the one hand and the parliament on the other. Together they make a law which is then carried out by the administrators. The task of controlling the administrators falls to the parliament; do directors properly implement the law as agreed? We call this the dual system.
The legislative power is the government together with the House of Representatives. They make a new law and the Senate does a kind of quality control. If the Senate finds the law to be okay, the law will enter into force. This is also the case with the province. The Provincial Executive (GS - the directors), together with the Provincial Council (PS - parliament), draws up a provincial regulation. GS executes, PS controls. And it is no different for municipalities. Mayor and aldermen make a new municipal bye-law together with the city council. B&W implements, the board checks.
Balance of power between administrators and the people
In the Netherlands, formally speaking, a parliamentary democratic constitutional state is based on a Constitution. Democracy, a word that comes from the Greek, literally means people's rule. The Montesquieu en Locke believed that the ruler should reflect the will of the people and that power should not rest with a small group or one person. Concretely translates to today; there must be a balance of power between those who govern (government, GS, B&W) and those who are governed, the citizens.
Because it is a bit difficult to get everyone to participate in the discussion, there is the so-called 'proportional representation' in the form of the people's representation; the House of Representatives, the Provincial Council and the municipal council. They must monitor whether the administrator is indeed carrying out 'the will of the people'. Through elections, the representatives of the municipal council, provincial councils and the House of Representatives end up on the plush. In theory, they should respect and defend the interests of citizens.
The task of the parliament therefore already starts with the drafting of the laws and regulations together with the administrator. They must carefully consider whether the interests of the people are served in a balanced way by the new law. Does this law not affect certain groups of citizens disproportionately? Are certain companies or organizations not being given an unfair advantage? Think of Shell who pays no taxes despite billions in profits to name one.
The Constitution instructs the representative of the people how to behave when a law or amendment to the law has to be voted on. Article 67 paragraph 3 says: 'Members vote without burden'† That is, without influence or pressure from outside. So much for the theory. It seems bright and clear. However, in practice it is quite different. I will limit myself here to The Hague, but the practices mentioned also play a role in provincial and municipal politics.
Open political debate? Dual system? No, cadaveric discipline!
During the drafting of a new law, there comes a time when the House of Representatives votes on the bill. Members should vote without burden. But in reality there is a question of cadaveric discipline: 'You vote as the party leaders determine. If not, there's some swaying.' Seems a bit populist so is that correct? Yes, the imposed cadaver discipline is overwhelming. In the period 2013-2016, 10.000 laws, motions and amendments were voted on; over 1,5 million votes.
You would think that a large number of votes against it would also have been cast by MPs from the coalition. After all, who has ever experienced in an association that every proposal of the board is always adopted by all members with the full consent of all? Well, yes, in the House of Representatives! Datagraver, an independent specialist company in data collection, demonstrates firmly that the coalition parties in the House of Representatives cadaver discipline no less than 99,999% amounts to. In short, every MP of the coalition always votes in accordance with the enforced party line. Opposition MPs are somewhat 'naughty' who occasionally dare to deviate from the party line. How come, voting without burden? Make no mistake. MPs swear allegiance to the Constitution and are literally violating their sworn duty on an assembly line.
And whoever does not want to listen and who does not vote as the party top commands will die under the boot of the party top; no place on the electoral list in the next elections! Whoever leaves the party and forms a one-man faction loses almost any kind of support if it is up to the joint party bosses. By law (!) they want to regulate that unicameral factions, the 'dissidents' and freethinkers who want to enter into an open debate, will be discriminated against. A squeezed budget, less talk time, a second-class status as a group, reports the ONGOING (June 2015). In concrete terms, this means that the parties want to silence people's representatives who think otherwise.
In short, cadaver discipline guarantees the coalition a majority on every bill; no dissenting votes. MPs prostitute themselves for party and/or personal gain and/or misplaced personal loyalties to party leaders or ministers. They consider that more important than their loyalty to their duty, to the citizen and to the Constitution. A disgusting practice and a moral, ethical and political travesty.
Tjeenk Willing emphasizes in his lecture The Neglected State, the toxic effect of this method: “No one should claim the monopoly of the final right. Not even the political majority.”† He also emphasizes that the coalition agreement, together with the cadaveric discipline, silences any form of open debate. Mr Fortuyn agrees that in The ruins of eight years of Purple: “Once every four years the voting stock, that is to say we, can turn up to elect a House of Representatives and then the political-administrative elite determines how and in which composition we are governed”.
Law Quality Control
A constitutional court is a group of judges that checks whether a new law does not infringe the fundamental rights of citizens. Many countries have such a court. not the Netherlands. In the Netherlands, that control is done by, yes, the legislature or the government and the States General (2e in 1. e Room). That is the butcher who inspects his own meat. That is the level of: “We at WC Duck recommend, WC Duck!”
Moreover, when about 10.000 laws, motions and amendments (amendments) come along in three years, as Datagraver showed, what does that mean for the workload? The House of Representatives works only 186 days per year considering all weekends, recesses and public holidays. This means that the House of Representatives has to check and assess about 18 (!) laws, motions and amendments every day they are in session. Serious? That's a joke, a sham.
Oh yes, and then this one. When compiling (new) legislation, the House of Representatives relies heavily on the reports of the WODC, the Scientific Research and Documentation Center that advises the House independently and on the basis of scientific research. The WODC has since 2014 (under Rutte of course) heavily compromised† Their advice was changed politically under government pressure. Senior officials of the ministries acted as front men.
Conclusion, nobody in the Netherlands monitors whether new legislation does not affect our fundamental rights. Not only my conclusion, by the way, but also that of Tjeenk Willink. And he held sway for years at the Council of State, the advisory body that advises the legislator on new legislation.
Even more laughs; the controlling function…
What about the control function of the Chamber? That checking comes in the form of Parliamentary questions† That is fixed in the Constitution Article 68† In the same sentence, the Constitution has also built in two neat escape options for ministers and secretaries of state who are 'unwilling' to provide information. First, the Constitution does not specify a time limit for that response and also excludes "information contrary to the interest of the state". The latter is not exactly a small loophole.
The government (Minister/Secretary of State), required by the Constitution, must answer a question from a Member of Parliament who has put his ears to the ground and believes that something is 'not going well'. The Member of Parliament scrapes up the nerves to ask the minister what the situation is. Unfortunately, these parliamentary questions are no more than a superfluous political ritual, the outcome of which is already known in advance; more often not answered on time than and/or a cleverly disguised smoke screen.
In 2019, 3078 questions were asked, half of which were not answered on time (3 weeks) and not even within 6 weeks (source: Het Parool – subscribers only). The record is 291 days under the motto 'care over speed'. Yes, but the soup is not eaten as hot as it is served and postponement leads to adjustment. The answers, if you may speak of that, often consist of no, incomplete or incorrect information. References are made to previous questions that were also not answered, and so on, and so on. The allowance affair is a textbook example of the appalling practice of how the successive cabinets sent Rutte structurally, consciously and coordinated MPs with questions in a jumble. Are you tenacious like Pieter Omzigt, you will be purged as described above. (NB. Follow the link Omzigt and read how Hugo de J. became a minister and Omzigt was sidetracked…) Rutte personally led this cover-up. When the affair, which started 10 years ago, came to light, the House of Representatives initially did not even have the courage to send Rutte and his team home. Why, duty to the citizen? And now Rutte and his accomplices are back on the plush after falling over the same allowance affair.
The government has a duty to inform the House of Representatives. Let's put Rutte under the magnifying glass. Lying is second nature to this figure and he has an impressive number of lies to his name on a series of subjects: the additional tax from Brussels of 642 million, the civilian deaths in Iraq, MH17, the Zijlstra issue, the Teevendeal (receipt affair), about the dividend tax, the allowance affair and the…and the… the list is endless. Lying was once a political mortal sin and irrevocably meant your departure. Lying has been elevated to the 'new normal' and the House of Representatives is looking away.
The government, assisted by the party leadership of the coalition parties, structurally and profoundly undermines the controlling function of the House by structurally and systematically withholding crucial information or by spreading lies and vagueness.
The democratic content with regard to the legislative task of the House of Representatives is nil, given the cadaveric discipline that prevails there and the illegal influencing of independent advisory boards (WODC). The coalition agreement (see part 2) blocks any form of substantive debate, which is partly due to the poor quality of representatives and administrators (see part 1). It is Zum Kotzen that in the body that should be the shining banner of our democracy, where democracy takes shape, shape, face and voice, the party dictatorship rules with an iron fist.
The House allows itself to be peddled by the top of the parties that form the coalition. The Chamber allows itself to be peddled by the government that they have to control. The House is full of shit at the thought of sending failing and malpracticing ministers or state secretaries home. The Chamber is bursting at the seams when a government has to be dismissed that has already structurally cheated the ball (including allowances affair for several government periods).
The Chamber fails miserably in its task for these reasons; monitoring and directing the government. Asking critical questions is regarded as a lack of loyalty on the part of MPs towards people who are part of the government from their party. It is the wrong kind of loyalty to persons. That loyalty should lie with the content of the social issues. But it is precisely this loyalty to democracy and the citizen who is completely missing. And it is precisely there where the duty of the people's representation lies. A duty that is collectively and continuously violated.
The democratic content of the House of Representatives is therefore zero point zero. The House of Representatives has more than earned the nickname Bedroom.
The next part in the series is about the independence of the third state power, the judiciary.
I wish you freedom and the wisdom to handle it carefully,