Dr J.A. van Kemenade Chairman of the Council for Public Administration. Ladies and gentlemen,

Transcription

1 Building democracy and trust: a never-ending challenge Opening speech at the Rob-NWO Conference Democracy & Trust, Friday 16 January 2009, Sociëteit De Witte, The Hague Dr J.A. van Kemenade Chairman of the Council for Public Administration Ladies and gentlemen, On behalf of the Council for Public Administration and the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, I would like to welcome you to this conference concerning Democracy & Trust. Building democracy and trust or even distrust is a never-ending challenge for politicians, public administrators, civil society and its organisations. Electoral upheaval, a political system that has alienated itself from large sections of the public, the people s growing dissatisfaction with politics and government, their increasing cynicism about politics, and the protracted loss of political parties' effectiveness these are all trends and changes that call for us to reconsider the organisational structure and functioning of the political system in the Netherlands and, I think, in other western countries. The key task of the Council for Public Administration, an advisory body to the Dutch Government and Parliament, is to use its reports, other publications and symposiums to aid in this process of reconsideration. The Council for Public Administration has therefore been pleased and delighted to join the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research in organising this conference on Democracy and Trust. Your position, ladies and gentlemen, is a special one, as you are conducting research within the broad, multidisciplinary programme Contested Democracy. In The Netherlands many observers consider the electoral successes of new political parties of so called movements as an indication of the end of representative democracy. That is not the case, in my opinion. On the contrary. These new movements give those sections of the public who do not feel at home in the existing political parties an outlet for expressing their opinions and promoting their interests. Viewed from this perspective, the rise of such new political formations in fact demonstrates the power of the democratic system, rather than its collapse. But at the same time, however, these new movements express the existing dissatisfaction among large groups of people with the way our political system functions; they also reveal the increasing impotence of the established political parties, and the growing personalisation of democracy. In this speech, I suggest some ways in which we can improve the functioning of our democratic, administrative and political system, with a view to building trust in government and politics and without veering away from the basic principles of our representative democracy. I start with a brief diagnosis of the problematical relationship between government and politics on the one hand and the public on the other. My speech essentially 1

2 concerns the Dutch situation, but it is likely to apply to the situation in other western democracies as well. Increasingly, the public s opinion of government is defined more and more by incidents and newsworthy issues than by important policy decisions. For many, government is nothing more than one of the many stakeholders that make up our society. Government has become more bureaucratic, and politics has been professionalized. The public is hence finding it more difficult to recognize itself in either. There are various underlying factors: the individualisation within and of society, greater prosperity in general, and the public s growing desire for self-determination. At the same time, social contrasts have become much less stark, and many people no longer embrace all-encompassing ideologies as a frame of reference for their opinions and conduct. Gradually, an opaque system of claims and obligations has arisen that many no longer recognize as the social contract that once guaranteed solidarity and collective interests in society. People have certainly not become disinterested in public affairs, but their involvement and commitment are more incidental and transient in nature, and they tend to express themselves these days by single-issue organisations, movements and actions rather than by traditional and more broadly oriented ones. The quest for the public s support for government policy is now continuous, and governance is much more a question of feeling one s way. In that changing landscape of blurred ideological dividing lines, individualisation, and the break-down of religious, social, political and class barriers, political parties are no longer capable of truly mediating between the public and government; neither can they offer much of a platform to shape public opinion, nor provide a unifying framework for collective action. Large sections of the public see no difference anymore between the political parties, something that has lessened their involvement in democracy and government. The decline of politics in public decision-making, the result of many different trends in the past few decades, has also made it much harder for the public to see its own views reflected in politics or in political choices. The internationalisation of the economy, the growing influence of the European Union, privatisation, functional de-concentration, the trend toward professionalisation, the increasing fragmentation of society, the growing bureaucracy associated with policy and in particular policy implementation, and the increasing complexity of public issues have all considerably limited the scope available to politics, political parties and the role of politics in society. In addition, I think, the way that government functions has alienated it from the public. Many now see government as a kind of supermarket for public services managed by a complicated network of public servants, committees, mandates, rules and internal arrangements. The public has trouble discerning the political choices that underlie government action, and it is therefore no surprise that it increasingly behaves as a customer and not as a citizen. For many people, government is merely one of numerous parties operating in the social landscape, a party that we make use of when it is convenient and that we resist when we believe it is harming or not paying enough attention to our interests and opinions. Consequently, when the result of the democratic process turns out unfavourably for us, we increasingly use the system of administrative law as a tool with which we can still get our way. 2

3 The chairman of this Conference, Professor Paul Frissen, is the most outspoken exponent in the Netherlands of the idea that our democratic system has collapsed. Professor Frissen has argued convincingly that the idea of the centralised governance of the public domain, supported by collective opinion and the collective representation of interests in stable political formations, has been severely undermined by such social currents as individualisation, professionalisation, social and cultural diversity and fragmentation, advances in ICT and changes in public administration itself. In his view, these trends and currents have given rise to a fragmented society without a political or normative centre, to a Republic of citizens in which changing groups of stakeholders reach consensus by means of debate, consultation, negotiation, self-governance and self-regulation, and on a case-by-case basis on the form and substance of a changing kaleidoscope of public affairs. In Frissen s view, political parties can at best play a procedural role in such a society, by facilitating and encouraging debate and discussion and occasionally throwing new light on an issue. In my opinion this, what I would call Socratic model of right-minded, informed citizens who arrive at public arrangements in freedom and open debate, is very appealing but unrealistic. That is because it entirely ignores the fact that not everyone is equally well informed or can participate in the debate in the same way, that self-interest is a significant factor in society, and that power and hence the tendency for like-minded people to organise into groups plays an important role in the way society is structured. After all, democracy organised along political lines is precisely how our modern, complicated society attempts to limit self-interest at the expense of others and to curtail the unbridled exercise of power by a few. Debate, consultation and the open exchange of ideas are certainly important factors in that respect, but in my opinion they must lead to the organised expression of public opinion, on which we base our choice of political programmes, representatives and public administrators. It therefore seems to me that for the time being a partyless democracy is primarily an academic and virtual construct, one that is, moreover, not without risk for the functioning of our political democracy and democratic system of government. The fact, however, that our political system is not functioning properly is not a good reason to write off the political organisation of that system and the government based on it. Indeed, given the role that representative democracy plays in structuring our society, we would do far better to consider how to improve the functioning of that system and of the political parties that form its basis, and how we can alter them so that large sections of the public once more recognize them as representing their interests and opinions and expressing the social contract that binds them to public affairs. I believe that there are some ways in which we can effect an improvement in the way our democratic, administrative and political systems function. The improvements I propose basically focus on increasing some would way restoring the public s trust in democracy, politics and public administration. To begin with, political parties must alter their nature and working methods to reflect the changing circumstances in society. Political parties must constitute a bridge between private citizens and public administration, and they are crucial to a lively, living parliamentary democracy that forms the arena in which the different interests, concerns and opinions are weighed in such a way that citizens can recognize that process of consideration. 3

4 Political parties play various important roles in a democracy, such as: 1. Agenda-setting and articulation. Identifying and raising issues of public concern and recognizing how various population groups prefer to see those issues tackled and resolved. 2. Programme-setting. Developing a unified approach to resolve these issues based on a coherent strategic agenda setting out how society should be structured. 3. Unification. Promoting and maintaining the commitment of like-minded people concerning their coherent strategic agenda and the political programmes based on that agenda. 4. Recruitment. Selecting, training and presenting candidates who promote and execute their strategic agendas, programmes and solutions in representative bodies, and finally: 5. Electioneering or influence. Inspiring and moving the public to advocate and commit itself to their strategic agendas and programmes, both during and outside the electoral process. Like many other civil organisations, however, political parties have lost much of their effectiveness and influence in recent decades. Voter turn-out has declined steadily and has even dipped below fifty percent in our largest cities and in provincial elections. A mere two percent of Dutch voters are members of a political party. No more than ten percent of these are politically active in any way and determine the programmes and lists of candidates that form the basis of our political democracy. Political parties no longer have ties to major civil society organisations as a matter of course, whereas in the past such organisations provided them with the basis of support they needed and served as a channel of communication between politics and the public. Even more worrying, however, is that political parties play only a limited role if so ever in the current debate about public affairs and the potential and desirable solutions to numerous public issues. Political parties are evidently no longer capable of truly mediating between the public and the government, of offering a platform to shape opinion on public issues, or of providing a unifying and inspiring framework for collective action. Partly as a result, political parties and politicians today tend to be the managers of the state enterprise, the brokers of compromise however necessary that compromise may be rather than the organisations and individuals who express strategic agendas and viewpoints on public affairs. But that is precisely what they must do if the public is to recognize politics and government as its own, to place its trust in them, and to accept what government does as the legitimate, reliable outcome of a process in which its interests and opinions are considered. If they fail to do so, many people will no longer see compromises as a reasonable accommodation between various interests, but rather as misunderstood and incomprehensible random decision-making. This then strips political parties of their inspiring and unifying roles, which are in my opinion essential to a living political democracy and to ensuring support for democratic government as the representative of the public interest. 4

5 After all, political democracy only exists because there are choices to be made and because the public understands those choices and why they have been made. In order to invigorate political democracy, political parties will have to recast the form and function of their roles, at the same time acknowledging that they no longer have a monopoly on those roles and that they must now share them with other organisations the media, pressure groups and lobbyists. It will undoubtedly be difficult to invigorate politics and political parties in this way, but I do not think it is an impossible task. Various factors and trends will be important in that respect, the same factors that are already being discussed in various political parties. To begin with, it is vital that political parties once more set out clearly defined programmes, that the public once more recognizes them as the representatives of particular interests, opinions and perspectives on public affairs, and that the parties identify issues and priorities on that basis. Political parties must suppress the desire which is quite understandable in electoral terms to seek out the political centre and political consensus in advance so as to please all of the people all of the time. They will eventually only confuse everyone and not gain anyone s backing. This is all the more important because today's electorate is unstable and inconstant, and because increasingly, political parties can no longer fall back on a faithful rank-and-file. That means that political parties must find methods of open and ongoing communication with different population groups and groups of individuals who are involved in public affairs as professionals or consumers, so that they are always in touch with the concerns and worries of people in those sectors. And they can do that by the means and the methods offered by modern information- and communication technologies Not only the party members, but also other stakeholders in public affairs should therefore be given more influence in issues that ought to feature in party political programmes. Political parties might consider restructuring themselves so that they are organised not only by territory but also by category or function, for example with departments or sections focusing on such fields as education, healthcare, social security et cetera. Open and ongoing communication about the agendas and programmes pertaining to public issues, the positions adopted by public administrators, and the choices underlying compromises will require both the political parties and their representatives to use modern mass information channels themselves, making them less dependent on the media in their communication with the public. It will also require much more willingness to engage in forms of direct democracy within the party and with respect to administrative decision-making. It remains to be seen whether these and other developments will invigorate political parties in the present century. But if the parties do not consistently undertake these and similar efforts to boost their significance as a platform for public opinion and a unifying framework for programmes 5

6 setting out their views on the structure of society, and if they therefore see their effectiveness deteriorate further, then in my opinion our democratic system will eventually suffer great damage. Secondly, politicians and political parties must restore the primacy of politics in public affairs. Among other things, that means reconsidering the privatisation of public services and reflecting on the universal pressure on government to withdraw from public affairs. The current financial crisis has made it crystal-clear that an adequate functioning of the market needs a governmental framework of supervision and legislation, especially in important social services. Government also must find a new style of governance in which it consults with the parties involved and seeks support from the public for its policy, but does not become too dependent on that support. Government must make it clear to its consultation partners from the outset that political democracy will ultimately make choices and must be prepared to take the lead and to make the final decision. Too often, consultation and advice are still used to delay or avoid political decision-making at all levels of government. The public is left with the image of an impotent and ineffective government, and the process of political decision-making comes across as murky at best. Restoring the primacy of politics will also require clearer dividing lines to be drawn between public administration and politics, or in other words, a more dualistic relationship between the two. Public administration and politics have become synonymous to many people, although they are two separate, albeit interrelated, components of the democratic system. Public administration is mainly concerned with shaping and implementing policy, and it does so in consultation with other government bodies and civil society organisations. Politics ideally indicates the priorities and general direction of policy. In actual practice, however, politics has joined public administration in what we in The Netherlands call the polder model of administrative and official consultation and has therefore lost much of its identity and primacy. Restoring the primacy of politics will therefore require politicians and political parties to draw up clearly defined programmes, and elected representatives to conduct themselves not as civil servants or as fellow public administrators, but as the advocates of the interests and opinions of groups of citizens, and to be capable of explaining and accounting for any compromise they have accepted in the public arena. Restoring the primacy of politics does not imply that centralised government control of and within society should be reinforced, although that may be necessary now and again; what it mainly means is that politics, political parties and politicians once again give direction and meaning to society, and that they once more become capable of inspiring people to uphold and achieve ideals in the public domain. Thirdly, we must find ways of involving articulate individuals in the policy and policymaking of the various government bodies and allowing them to exert an influence. Examples would be an interactive form of public administration that is properly structured and implemented; the introduction of popular or citizens initiatives that make it possible for civil society groups to place issues on the decision-making agendas of our representative bodies; and a more effective use of the referendum, with the public being asked to decide between various alternatives, along with their advantages and disadvantages. Forms of functional democracy offer in my opinion good prospects here as well, not without or separate from the general democratic process, but rather within the political contexts set by it, analogous to the Dutch system in which the provincial governments determine the policy outlines and the water boards implement the policy. Such new democratic relationships could also be 6

7 introduced in other areas, for example in the police force, the fire brigade, public utilities, education, transport, healthcare, recreation and nature conservation. The policy of such functional organisations would be determined in part by directly elected councils operating within the specific policy frameworks and conditions defined by a general democratic process. In that way, members of the public can become more closely involved in the policymaking and policy execution of these public services while still making them subject to the all-round consideration and decision-making of the general democratic process. These hybrids of functional and general democracy can help to update the democratic system while preserving its basic achievements. Closer ties between the public and politics can also be effectuated by changing the electoral system in such a way that the relationship between voters and elected representatives is more direct. The Dutch system of proportional representation means often that most candidates are not elected under their own steam but in the slipstream of the candidate at the top of the list, that political parties need not make an effort to nominate other well-known and popular candidates, that our representative bodies are made up of what are to most people unfamiliar names and faces, and that for a representative to be re-elected, he or she must curry the favour not of the voter, but of the party executives. The relationship between voters and elected representatives can be made stronger, I think, by introducing a hybrid system such as the German model, or a multiple vote electoral system in which voters cast two ballots, one for a party and one for a candidate from the same or another party. Unlike a district system, such a system will also ensure that proportional representation is preserved. My final point is that there is every reason to restructure our public administration and political system, which has grown organically throughout our nation s history. The scale of local and regional government does not match the nature and scope of many public issues, leading to all kinds of complicated and half-democratic intermediate structures and alliances that many people and indeed many public administrators believe lack democratic accountability and responsibility. In other words, not only do many of these public organisations demonstrate little correspondence either with one another or with the scale of the public issues they are addressing, but they are furthermore not subject to visible democratic influence and monitoring. The many de-concentrated national agencies and the independent administrative bodies at national level make it all the more difficult to arrive at a coherent and effective governance system. There are therefore strong arguments in favour of restructuring our public administrative system at local, regional and national level and of redefining our political landscape and political system. I believe that these clusters of suggestions and considerations above can help us reinvigorate our democratic system. Suggestions and considerations that must be worked up in detail and given much thought, along with many other ideas and proposals. I am convinced that that process will be fostered by this two-day conference of renowned scholars from various countries, disciplines and value systems, who will contemplate contested democracy and how the public s trust in representative democracy can be increased significantly and in the long term. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for listening. I would now like to turn the floor over again to our chairperson, Professor Frissen. 7