The real lock in the Netherlands is called Mark Rutte

And the key is called: the function is elsewhere

In the last elections, a group of voters was allowed to cast their vote, who cannot remember the Netherlands without Prime Minister Rutte. Even if Rutte did everything right, you could make the argument that such a thing is not desirable. Even the most politically politicized democracy on earth, the United States, has a two-term term for its president. It was introduced after Franklin D. Roosevelt, who died in his fourth term after more than 12 years as president. Why this limit? Keep appointments and positions near and around the highest office in line with the democratic balance, so that the president cannot cast a long shadow over the government of a country.

In the Netherlands, Mark Rutte has grown so much with his “great job” that his premiership and the “Netherlands BV interest” he says he represents, have become one. A fairly large percentage of the electorate still thinks this is a good thing, but it also leads to an unhealthy situation in which certain voices and viewpoints of society are increasingly subordinated to a monotonously dominant political culture or ideology, as the rota has come to be called. Even worse, certain groups of citizens disappear into the black holes of the VVD’s political worldview. For comparison: if we had had a Socialist Party prime minister for twelve years, the millionaires and bankers would have had a harder time, but the victims in Groningen, and certainly the beneficiary parents, might not have been as bad as they are now, and the conditions for care And work for people doing real work (so not the advisor class or laptop class) spearheads were more important than under Rutte’s coffers. As a metaphor: each party has its own ideological hobby and they, in turn, all wear their inevitable flashes. That’s fine, as long as the political carousel stays filled with many horses – and it hasn’t been for a long time.

Healthy democracies maintain their equilibrium, especially when the principle of multi-party system is a reality because deputies (and even ministers) are chosen less and less based on their value-added merit, but on their docile willingness or professionalism to do what political bosses tell them. Just say what the doctrine of Rote de mustard Investigates: It has become (also) evident that the course’s policy decisions and political march orders are hidden from public view, and thus from broader scrutiny, primarily by the House of Representatives, but certainly also by the media (which publishes almost exclusively what it feeds press officials) and the broader public, who needs to back off WOO requests. Again, the full picture of the decision-making process can rarely be reconstructed because formal jurists tend to deviate more from the reasons why disclosure of certain information is inappropriate than from the democratic right to open government.

The situation becomes more dangerous when orders to march increasingly come from supranational (semi) governments like the European Union or the United Nations, technocrats that are difficult to control democratically, or even worse: multinational corporations like Shell and Unilever and NGOs like Soros. . and the Gates who spend billions financing their own interests — not to mention the quasi-sectarian crossovers of politics, business, and philanthropists who have united in the World Economic Forum. In every election again, voters seem to be more concerned about this. Has Wilders been a staple of dissatisfaction votes for nearly two decades, the recent victories of the FVD (RIP) and the BBB, or the ever-high polls of the likely Pieter Omtzigt party also endorse it. These are not only “populist opposition voters”, but also voters who fled old superpowers like PvdA and the CDA, as well as the ever-large group of people who still regret voting for D66: they are the only party that Marc Rutte does not support. need to itself halved after government participation.

It is of course not necessary to collaborate with BoerBurgerBeweging or to copy their agenda. But what always emerges from every political crisis, which has become a permanent keyword in recent years and which has led to the benefits crisis, the gas extraction crisis, the housing crisis, the asylum crisis, the welfare crisis and the alleged nitrogen crisis (not the other way around!), is that the old self-proclaimed centrist parties stick around. to one another – aided by the media and the socially and economically comparable virtuous class – applied a doctrine of exclusion and denunciation if possible which denied outsiders, newcomers, and others united any chance of administrative power. Over and over again, studies show: Voters are good losersIn particular, they want to feel heard in a fair democratic process practical. Because then they know that a losing vote is also worth any other vote. This desire has hardly been fulfilled in this century – and not only in that century three Referendums whose results did not appear from the window because of “Stupid voters“The wrong choice.”

This afternoon, the debate is disguised as a question about “necessary improvements in key issues” and questions about “a citizen’s distance from The Hague” in light of the recent election results. In fact, there will be another disagreement about the defect in the policy itself, as the coalition will defend itself as the key to all kinds of solid files, armed with constant dictates from Brussels, covered by legal provisions imposed through professional agitators. And with the support of the parliamentary majority – who does exactly what his boss tells him to do – dismantle any predictable no-confidence vote through the majority.

They can argue as much as they want, but the alliance still in place does not have the real lock key on Dutch BV: Mark Rutte.

debate? in a democracy? How is that?

social

(Update – they will come, When everyone is already asleep)