Sincerely Independent News & Opinions


About cadaveric discipline and failure to control the parliament

In part 1 of this series it was substantiated why we have qualitatively inadequate administrators and representatives of the people. The bottom line is that there are too few high-quality candidates on the political labor market to actually get really good, skilled administrators and representatives of the people in the right political positions. With 2,6 candidates per political position, poverty is a trump card.

Part two pierced the myth of the democratic content of elections.

The voter has no influence on the election campaigns, electoral lists, the interpretation of the election results and what consequences are attached to this by the parties. The voter also has no influence on the advance exclusion of certain coalition partners or the return of losing parties. And election promises disappear during the coalition talks without voters being consulted.

Now we look at the democratic content of the parliament, especially the House of Representatives.

The dual system
In our system we have three state powers; the legislative, administrative and judicial powers.

These three are also called the trias politica and 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 even considered influencing as inadmissible.

After all, such practices harm the principle of divided 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 that is then implemented by the directors. The task of controlling the directors falls to the parliament; do they implement the law properly 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, we have a parliamentary democratic constitutional state based on a Constitution.

Democracy, a word that comes from the Greek, literally means people's rule. De Montesquieu and Locke believed that the governor should reflect the will of the people and that power should not rest with a small group or one person. Specifically 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, there is the so-called 'proportional representation' in the guise of the parliament; the House of Representatives, the Provincial Council and the municipal council. They should monitor whether the governor is indeed carrying out 'the will of the people'. The citizens choose the parliament that must respect and defend their interests.

The task of the parliament therefore already starts with the drafting of the laws and regulations together with the administrator. It must be carefully considered 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 or do certain companies or organizations receive an unfair advantage? Think of Shell that does not pay tax despite its profit of billions to name one.

The Constitution offers a guarantee that the parliament can do what it needs to do. Article 67 paragraph 3 says: "The members vote without charge." That is to say, without influence or pressure from outside.

So much for the theory.

It appears crisp and clear. However, this is quite different in practice. 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 proposal.

The members should vote "without charge" (Constitution art. 67, paragraph 3). But in reality there is cadaveric discipline: 'You vote as the party leadership decides. If not, something will swing. '

Seems populist so is that right?

Yes, the imposed cadaveric discipline is overwhelming. In the period 2013-2016, 10.000 laws, motions and amendments (amendments) were voted on; more than 1,5 million votes. You would think that there would also have been a considerable number of votes against by MPs from the coalition. After all, who has ever seen in an association that every proposal of the board is always accepted by all members with the full consent of everyone, hasn't it? Well, in the House of Representatives.

Datagraver, an independent specialist data collection company, proves that party discipline within the coalition parties in the House of Representatives is no less than 99,999%. Every member of parliament in coalition always votes in accordance with the enforced party line. MPs from the opposition are somewhat 'naughty' who dare to deviate from the party line from time to time.

Why, the members vote without charge?

Make no mistake. MPs pledge allegiance to the Constitution and violate their sworn duty. As a citizen you should try to violate article 1, the anti-discrimination article. Tell your BML what 'Over the top'
finds. Then you will be denounced, thrown to the wolves and eaten with skin and hair and spat out.

And so you see, we are equal before the law, but some are clearly more equal than others. More about that in the next part of this serial.

This cadaveric discipline guarantees the coalition a majority on every bill, because there are never opposed voters within the coalition parties. That is unbelievable. Can you imagine that an SP, VVD, GroenLinks or D66 voter will always agree with everything that that party propagates under whatever circumstances? Not me.

In short, MPs prostitute themselves for party and / or personal gain or misplaced personal loyalties. She considers this more important than their loyalty to duty and to the citizen and the Constitution. That's disgusting; a moral, ethical and political travesty.

Tjeenk Willing emphasizes in his lecture De Ververkloosde Staat, the toxic effect of this method:
'Nobody should claim the monopoly of the final right. Also the political majority not'. He also emphasizes that the coalition agreement, together with the cadaveric discipline, will silence any form of open debate.

Mr. Fortuyn agrees that in De ruins of eight years of Purple: 'You can do it once every four years the voting cattle, that is to say, us, to elect a House of Representatives and then the political-administrative elite determines how and in what composition we are governed.

Controlling function? A laughing stock!
What about the controlling function of the House? This checking takes the form of parliamentary questions. The minister must answer a question from a member of parliament on a specific subject.

The MP has put his ears to the ground and believes that something is 'not going properly' and is scraping the nerve to ask the minister how that is. Unfortunately, these parliamentary questions are no more than a superfluous political ritual, the outcome of which is known in advance.

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). The record is 291 days and that under the motto 'precision over speed'.

Yes, but the soup is not eaten as hot as it is served and delay leads to cancellation.

That answering is done little by little; no, incomplete or incorrect information is given, references are made to previous questions that were also not answered, and so on and so on.

Read the columns of Pieter Klein of RTL, investigative journalist 2019, and shudder. Read about the benefits affair and how the Rutte governments pursued a cover-up strategy orchestrated from above for years and deliberately kept the House out of the game. Acting injustice was elevated to government policy!

And, and that is most unfortunate, when the affair, which started 8 years ago, came to light, the House of Representatives did not have the courage to send Rutte and his team home. Why, duty to citizens The government also has an obligation to provide information to the House of Representatives. We put government leader Rutte under the magnifying glass. He has an impressive number of lies behind his name; the civilian deaths in Iraq, the Zijlstra issue, the Teevendal (receipt affair), about the dividend tax, the benefits affair and the… the list is endless.

Lying was once a political mortal sin and inevitably meant your departure. Lying seems elevated to it 'new normal'. The Chamber is failing in its task; controlling and directing the government. The Befehl-ist-Befehl content, the cadaveric discipline, is 100 percent.

The democratic content of the House of Representatives is zero, given the cadaveric discipline that prevails there. The coalition agreement blocks any form of debate, which can be attributed, among other things, to the poor quality of representatives, administrators and party leaders. For an explanation, see Part 1.

It is utterly despicable that in the organ that should be the radiant signboard of our democracy, where democracy takes shape, shape, face and voice, party dictatorship rules with an iron fist. And whoever does not want to listen will die under the boot of the party top; no longer on the electoral list at the
next elections! And whoever leaves the party and forms a one-man faction, loses any form of support if it is up to the joint party bosses.

By law (!) They want to arrange that one-chamber factions, the 'dissidents' and freethinkers who want to enter into an open debate, will be discriminated against. Their budget must be squeezed, they get less speaking time, a second-class status as a group, according to the Nederlands Dagblad (5 December 2016).

The government structurally and profoundly undermines the controlling function of the House by withholding crucial information, not answering parliamentary questions or answering too late or by reciting lies.

The Chamber then categorically refuses to send home failing and malverting ministers or state secretaries. The Chamber shits the diaper when a government that has already been structurally cheated for several government periods (including benefits affair).

The next part in the series is about the independence of the third state power, the judiciary.

I wish you wisdom,
Karel Nuks

PART I - About weaknesses and poverty


PART II - On the myth of voter influence


Spread the love

Share this article!

Subscribe now
Subscribe to
May be your real name or a pseudonym
Not required
1 reaction
newest most voted
Inline feedback
See all comments
nl Dutch
What is your response to this?x