Acta Politica, 2008, 43, (472 492) r 2008 Palgrave Macmillan 0001-6810/08 www.palgrave-journals.com/ap/ Utrecht School of Governance, Universiteit Utrecht, Bijlhouwerstraat 6, Utrecht 3511 ZC, The Netherlands. E-mail: A.M.B.Michels@uu.nl Normative theories on democracy differ in their view on the role of citizen participation. Whereas in the model of representative democracy, the role of citizen participation is mainly voting; in the models of associative democracy, deliberative democracy, and participatory democracy, other aspects of citizen participation are emphasized. This article investigates the extent to which the theoretical debate on democracy is reflected in the public debate on democracy and in democratic practices. It does so for the Dutch case. The analysis shows that the representative model dominates the Dutch debate on democracy among opinion makers and political parties. As far as elements of other models are mentioned, there appears to be a connection with the (ideological) background of the defenders of that perspective: the associative concept of democracy is mainly debated among Christian Democrats, the participatory model among parties from the Left, and the deliberative model among academics. Although the representative model is dominant in the public debate on democracy, the article also shows examples of local democratic practices in which elements of different models of democracy appear to be present. Acta Politica (2008) 43, 472 492. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500205 Keywords: democracy; participation; public debate; political parties Introduction Many countries in Western Europe are facing an increasing volatility in elections, a decreasing turnout, a loss in party membership, and the growth of right-wing parties (Mair and van Biezen, 2001; Mair, 2005; Gallagher, 2006). Although, broadly speaking, confidence in democracy and politics does not seem to slipping, political research does show evidence of a loss of confidence in political institutions and politicians and of popular indifference to conventional politics in many countries (Dekker, 2003; Mair, 2005). The question of how politicians should react is the subject of public debate in many countries. In fact, this debate deals with the issue of what type of democracy is needed. Politicians and political opinion makers do agree that in a modern democracy citizens should participate and be involved. There is, however, considerably less agreement on the extent to which and in what way
473 such participation should be effected. In fact, this has yielded a discussion in which arguments from different theoretical models of democracy seem to be interwoven. This article aims at unravelling the debate on democracy through the lens of democratic theory. The question addressed in this article is: to what extent is the theoretical debate on democracy reflected in the public debate on democracy and in democratic practices? The article examines the debate on democracy among opinion makers and between political parties. It does so for the Dutch case. The first section presents four normative theoretical models of democracy. Within each of these models, participation has a different meaning. The second part of this article investigates the Dutch debate on democracy. It starts with a short overview of Dutch politics during the past few decades. It then examines the debate on democracy among opinion makers and in party manifestoes, and presents some experiences with democratic practices. Views on participation and democracy will be confronted with the theoretical perspectives on democracy. Models of Democracy The concept of democracy has always been contested, as is evident from the enormous body of literature on different models of democracy (see e.g. Held, 1987; Sabine, 1989; Lijphart, 1999; Saward, 2003; Hendriks, 2006). Participation is generally seen as an important element of democracy. To what extent and how citizens should participate, are questions that belong to the core of normative political theories on democracy. The answers differ, however. In some theories, participation of many people is seen as vital to democracy, whereas other theories equate participation with the selection of politicians. In this section, four models of democracy will be presented, each emphasizing another view on participation: the representative model of democracy, the associative model, the deliberative model, and the participatory model of democracy. 1 These models also differ in their answers to questions like: Who decides, and who are the main actors? Representative democracy The representative model of democracy is probably the model that is most frequently described. The model focuses on decision-making by elected representatives. Liberal democracy and polyarchical democracy are also often-used terms to label this type of democracy (Saward, 2003, 150). In this first model of democracy, participation plays only a marginal role and is limited to voting for leaders.
474 One of the main representatives of this view is Joseph Schumpeter. He defines democracy in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy as follows: The democratic method is that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of competitive struggle for the people s vote (Schumpeter, 1976, first published in 1942, 269). Hence, in this view, the competition for leadership is the core of democracy. The role of the people is no more than to produce a government (Schumpeter, 1976, 269). Voters must understand that, once they have elected their leader, political action is the leaders business and not theirs. In his view, ordinary people could not be expected to judge about politics and policies. Therefore, massive political participation is seen as undesirable. A more modern representative of this view on democracy is Robert Dahl. In his A Preface to Democratic Theory (1956), he, too, focuses on decisionmaking by the elected representatives of the people. In Dahl s view, elections play a central role in maximizing democracy, that is, in maximizing popular sovereignty and political equality. Through elections, voters can express their choice for alternatives. The alternative with the greatest support among the voters will be chosen and displace the other alternatives. The orders of the elected politicians will then become policy. Dahl, too, has a narrow conception of political participation. He even regards massive participation as dangerous, because an increase in political activity among the lower socio-economic classes could lead to more authoritarian ideas and thus to a decline in consensus about the basic norms of democracy (Dahl, 1956, 89). Although different theories on representative democracy may emphasize different aspects, they share the following characteristics: the emphasis is on decision-making by elected representatives, the main role of voters is to select leaders, and participation takes place through elections. Associative democracy The model of associative democracy emphasizes the importance of informal and local associations in democracy. These associations have an essential role in performing governance functions on behalf of their members. In this model, citizen participation takes place in associations. The concept of associative democracy is most notably present in the writings of Paul Hirst. In his book, Associative Democracy, he develops the idea of associative democracy as an answer to the increasingly diverse and pluralistic objectives of the members of modern societies (Hirst, 1994, 6). He claims that individual liberty and human welfare are best served when social affairs are managed by voluntary and democratically self-governing associations. According to Hirst, in an associative democracy, these voluntary selfgoverning associations should be the primary means of democratic governance.
475 Social movements must build their own self-governing communities in civil society. These self-governing associations must not be regarded as secondary or opposing organizations, but as essential to democratic politics. Also, power should, as far as possible, be distributed to distinct domains of authority, and administration within these domains should be devolved to the lowest level for effective governance. And finally, democratic governance is more than elections and majority decisions; it should also provide for the continuous flow of information between governors and the governed. In Hirst s view, communication in democracy can operate best in a system where associations have government tasks, and where coordination depends on the cooperation of these associations (Hirst, 1994, 19 40). So, the model of associative democracy may be said to be characterized by voluntary self-governing associations, which are regarded as important to democracy. Furthermore, participation takes place through associations and there should be multiple and diverse centres of power. Deliberative democracy A relatively new conception of democracy is the deliberative democracy model. The emphasis in this model of democracy is on discussion and deliberation. Deliberation, rather than voting, is regarded as the central mechanism for political decision-making. Participation takes place through deliberation. Although the definitions of deliberative democracy differ widely from one another, all theorists agree that this concept of democracy includes at least the following characteristics (e.g. Elster, 1998; Fishkin and Laslett, 2002; Gutmann and Thompson, 2004). First, essential to the deliberative view on democracy is decision-making by means of arguments. Participants in the democratic process discuss with each other problems and proposed solutions to these problems. And secondly, a deliberative process assumes free public reasoning, equality, inclusion of different interests, and mutual respect. Only then, argue the theorists of deliberative democracy, can deliberation lead to rational and legitimate decisions. Many issues remain on which there is less clarity. One of the issues is where deliberation should take place and who should be involved. Theories of deliberative democracy make mention of a wide range of possible deliberation forums, varying from parliament to expert forums and citizen panels (Fishkin and Laslett, 2002; Akkerman, 2006). Other issues regard the goal of deliberation (to reach a consensus or not), and the question of when deliberation stops and decision-making starts. However, all theorists on deliberative democracy focus on the democratic process. No matter how many people participate, who participates, and where participation takes place, the
476 process of coming to decisions can only be valued as democratic if it meets the criteria of deliberation. Hence, characteristic for deliberative democracy is public debate and discussion, the assumption of free public reasoning and equality, and participation through deliberation. Participatory democracy The final model of participatory democracy emphasizes the necessity of extensive participation in decision-making. In this model, citizen participation is regarded as vital to democracy. The theoretical roots of this view go back to Rousseau. 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 Rousseau s view, as formulated in Du Contrat Social, the basis of the political system is the social contract. Under this contract the citizens abstain from their own desires and decide to be free by making the laws that rule them (Rousseau, 1988/1762, 10 12 and 27 30). Hence, political participation is an essential element because it ensures freedom for everyone. In addition, participation has important educational and social functions; by participating, individual citizens learn to be public citizens who are engaged in more than just their own private interests (Rousseau, 1988/1762, 14 15). Modern theorists on participatory democracy, like Pateman, emphasize that participation should not only cover every aspect of political decision-making, but should encompass such areas as the workplace and local communities as well (Pateman, 1970). Other theorists propose the referendum as an instrument for participatory democracy. But in all theories of participatory democracy, citizens are regarded as the central actors. To conclude, the emphasis in the participatory model on democracy is on broad and direct participation by citizens in political decision-making, and in other areas as well. In Table 1, the main characteristics of the four models of democracy are summarized. The four models of democracy vary in the way they view such fundamentals as direct or indirect democracy (which distinguishes the participatory democracy model from the models of representative democracy and associative democracy), the democratic process or decision-making (which sets the deliberative model of democracy apart from the other models), or the organized group or the individual as the central actor (which distinguishes the associative democracy model from the others). Participation has a different
477 Table 1 Models of democracy, views on participation Representative democracy Decision-making K Decision-making by elected representatives K Focus on decision-making institutions Associative democracy Decision-making K Voluntary self-governing associations (e.g. interest groups, religious groups) as primary means of democratic governance K Localized power Main actors Main actors K Voters (selection of leaders) K Voluntary self-governing associations K Political leaders Participation Participation K Participation through elections K Participation through associations Deliberative democracy Participatory democracy Decision-making Decision-making K Focus on the democratic process and not on decision-making, which includes: K Focus on decision-making by individual citizens K Public debate and discussion K Direct democracy: referenda K Free public reasoning and equality K Participation in local communities, the workplace, etc. Main actors Main actors K Participants in deliberation K Individual citizens Participation Participation K Participation through deliberation K Broad and direct participation meaning in each of the models, but there is no hierarchy from low to high participation between the models. The models are ideal types of democracy that in practice may be seen as complementary to one another. For instance, modern democracies are representative democracies, but most of them also exhibit characteristics of the other models. The Dutch Case Dutch politics have gone through a period of heavy turmoil since the beginning of the new century. The electoral victory of the newcomer Pim Fortuyn in the
478 2002 elections made it clear that something had gone wrong in Dutch politics. Long known as a stable democracy, the Netherlands suddenly became an example of the uprising of the citizens against the political elites. The need for changes and adaptations in the democratic system and culture was widely heard. The Dutch case is therefore an interesting case to study. Dutch society has developed from a society in which passivity and allegiance to the elites of the pillars was the dominant political attitude of the citizens, into a society marked by growing demands and dissatisfaction among citizens and a growing concern among politicians about a widening gap with the public. In the era of Pillarization (1945 1965), Dutch society was characterized by tightly organized sub-cultures of minorities, which were organized along a religious and socio-economic dimension. Pillarization structured political parties, but also trade unions, schools, the media, and leisure activities (Lijphart, 1979). Nearly every aspect of social life took place within these pillars. In this era, political attitudes of Dutch citizens could be characterized by passivity and a broad acceptance of the authority of the elites. This passivity can partly be explained by the dominance of the elites, but was also due to the political attitude of the Dutch in general. As Daalder argued, the Dutch attitude towards authority could be characterized as a mixture of deference and indifference (Daalder, 1966). This situation began to change 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 number of people who felt a strong loyalty to the pillar in which they had been raised declined rapidly. This ongoing depillarization took place against the backdrop of a broader movement for democratization and resistance to authority that originated from the youth cultures of western-european cities. In the 1970s and 1980s, new forms of participation arose outside the official political arena. New social movements, like the women s movement, the squatters, and the anti-nuclear movement tried to influence politics by organizing extra-parliamentary actions. Since the second half of the 1980s, there has been 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 2002). Also, among large groups of the electorate, there has been a growing distrust in political institutions and politics in general (Dekker and Van der Meer, 2004; Becker and Dekker, 2005). These developments, further encouraged by a slight decrease in voter turnout, contributed to a growing concern among the established political elites about a widening gap with the public. As an answer to the gap between politicians and citizens, the debate on democratic reforms broadened and several constitutional reforms have been proposed. Earlier research shows that there is a
479 certain consensus among the administrative and academic elites in the Netherlands on the desired type of democracy (Michels, 2006). Citizen participation is thought to encompass more than just voting in elections. However, participation is not seen as an essential feature of democracy but, at best, as an instrument to improve the current working of representative democracy. Opinion Makers and the Debate on Democracy In this contribution, the focus is on the public debate. We start with the debate on democracy among opinion makers. In order to gain an impression of the issues and models of democracy that are debated among opinion makers, an analysis of newspaper articles was carried out. The analysis included newspaper articles, which were published in the NRC-Handelsblad between January 2002 and December 2005. NRC-Handelsblad is considered to be an important national and neutral newspaper that offers a broad view of divergent (political) opinions. Since we are looking for a variety in opinions on democracy, NRC-Handelsblad seemed to be a good choice for selection. Opinion makers writing for this newspaper have various political and professional backgrounds, and we therefore may expect a variety in opinions on democracy. The findings are not representative of the opinions of all opinion makers in the Netherlands, in the sense that it may very well be that some ideas on democracy (e.g. those that are mainly debated among academics) are over-represented, but they do offer a picture of the different positions in the debate on democracy among opinion makers. The starting point for the selection of articles was the object of the analysis, which was the relationship between (participation of) citizens on the one hand, and the political domain on the other. I therefore made a selection of articles on the issue, beginning my search with articles that included the words citizen and politics, and then extending the selection with all possible combinations of the words democracy, participation, citizens, and politics. From these, I selected all articles expressing an opinion on this issue for the Netherlands. I have defined opinion makers broadly enough such as to include everybody who takes part in the public debate, among whom politicians, ex-politicians, political commentators, academic opinion leaders, but also readers who have an interest in the subject. The final selection of articles contained 83 articles. The unit of analysis was the article. To determine the model category to which an article was to be assigned, I reviewed this against the characteristics of the models presented in Table 1. Every bullet defines a characteristic of that respective model of democracy. If an article contained a mention of one or more characteristics of a particular democracy model, that article was labelled as fitting into that model. For example, if an opinion maker focused on the
480 relevance of referenda for democracy, that article was categorized as fitting into the participatory democracy model. If the focus was on public debate and reasoning, the article came into the category of deliberative democracy. In the majority of the articles, only a single concept of democracy was expressed in one article. But, in a few cases, a combination of opinions was expressed, which fall into different categories of democracy. In those cases, the article was categorized as partly falling into the one model and partly in another, or even several others. Representative democracy Elements from the representative model of democracy dominate the public debate on democracy. A vast majority of the newspaper articles by opinion makers (61%) fits into this model; that is, in these articles the emphasis is on decision-making by elected representatives, the selection of leaders, leadership, decision-making institutions, and elections. The opinion makers who use arguments from this model of democracy have different political and professional backgrounds. A large number of them are politicians or ex-politicians from various political parties, including the Liberal party (VVD), the Democratic Liberals (D66), the Christian Democratic party (CDA), the Labour Party (PvdA), Green Left (GroenLinks), and the List Pim Fortuyn (LPF). Others have an academic background in constitutional law, political science, public administration, sociology, or history. Others again, are political commentators, staff members of research institutions of political parties, or ordinary politically engaged citizens. Some of the opinion makers merely stress the relevance of the preservation of representative democracy. Others make suggestions to improve the current working of representative democracy. However, there is no agreement on which elements of the working or the system of representative democracy should be adapted. The debate on this subject can be summarized in six main issues. The first issue concerns the working of parliament. According to many opinion makers, parliament (specifically, the Second Chamber) should be more active in controlling government. Coalition politics and agreements between the government and the coalition parties in parliament make it difficult for individual parliamentarians to disagree. Nevertheless, many opinion makers argue for a more active role of parliamentarians, for more dualism between parliament and government, and for abolishing party discipline. A second issue concerns the quality and attitude of politicians. Many emphasize that we need better, stronger, and more passionate politicians. This demands a better selection of individual members of parliament. Until now, quality has not always seemed to be a criterion for selection. Furthermore, these opinion makers feel that it is important that politicians not only listen to the people but
481 also clearly state what is beyond their competence. The third issue is the selection of political leaders and senior civil servants. With respect to this issue, opinion makers advocate either a direct election of major political positions or a more transparent procedure for arriving at political appointments. Fourth, there is the issue of institutional revisions. These include suggestions for revising the electoral system (a stronger focus on regional representation, or a voting threshold), and changes in the cabinet formation. The fifth issue is transparency and accountability. A modern government and public sector should be more transparent, more service oriented, and more accountable to the public. And finally, the sixth issue, concerns the role of political parties. Some opinion makers point to the lack of a clear choice between political alternatives and favour a political landscape with two major political parties or combinations of parties offering voters two clear alternative policy programmes. Associative democracy The associative model of democracy is much less apparent in the public debate on democracy among opinion makers. Elements from this model can be found in only 6% of the newspaper articles. In these articles, the focus is on selfgoverning associations and groups and on localized power. Arguments from this model can be heard among leaders of the main workers organizations and within the Christian Democratic Party. Most opinion makers, following the associative line of argument, emphasize that for a better working of the political system, the responsibility should be given back to citizens (e.g. teachers, parents, directors of schools) and selfgoverning associations. Private initiatives should be encouraged and government interference with society should be reduced. Concepts, such as private initiative (particulier initiatief ), civil society, and organizations between state and market (maatschappelijk middenveld ) which are typical for the Dutch discourse on the relation between state and society and which are part of the Christian political ideology, dominate the debate on this issue. Others stress the importance of the cooperation between employers and workers organizations for the working of democracy. A single opinion maker points to the actual development of a network society in which the traditional democratic institutions lose power, and a plurality of organizations and power centres develop. In his view, this development strengthens democracy, in the sense that it contributes to a stronger system of checks and balances, that is, of power and counter power. Deliberative democracy Elements from the deliberative model of democracy can only be found in 7% of the newspaper articles. In these articles, the focus is on public debate and
482 discussion, and on free public reasoning. Furthermore, attention is primarily paid to the democratic process and less to decision-making. Most of the opinion makers who use arguments from this model of democracy have an academic background in sociology, political science, and legal philosophy. Some of them are staff members of advisory committees or journalists. All of them emphasize the relevance of public debate in a democracy, but they differ in their interpretation of where changes should take place. According to some of them, the parliament and political parties have a role in increasing the quality of the debates in parliament, which are often considered to be of poor quality, with too much focus on technical details. Others consider it essential to democracy that citizens meet outside the traditional political forums for open discussions on political and other community matters. Ideas aimed at introducing citizen forums and panels in which citizens deliberate and try to give a well-informed advice that could play a role in formal decision-making have been launched. Finally, some opinion makers argue in favour of inclusion of migrants and other groups who often do not take part in the public debate. Participatory democracy Elements from the participatory model of democracy determine for a considerable part the public debate on democracy. A minority of 26% of the newspaper articles by opinion makers fits into this model. In these articles, the focus is on direct democracy, referendums, participatory decision-making, including individual participation in local communities and the workplace. Again, the opinion makers who use arguments from this model of democracy have different political backgrounds, although the politicians and ex-politicians from the Democratic Liberals (D66), the Labour Party (PvdA) and Green Left (GroenLinks) dominate the debate on introducing participatory elements in a democracy. Other participants in this debate are members of governmental advisory organizations, political commentators and academics, notably sociologists, historians, and researchers in public administration. The opinion makers arguing within this model emphasize the importance of giving more responsibility and influence to the people. Most of them give concrete suggestions for introducing participatory democratic elements. These suggestions can be summarized into three categories. The first category encompasses suggestions for institutional revisions, such as the introduction of the referendum, the popular initiative, the recall procedure, and the right for citizens to put policy problems on the political agenda. The debate concentrates on the referendum and the various types of referendums (a decisive or a consultative referendum; after a decision has been taken by
483 parliament or before; a choice between a yes or a no or multiple choices). A second category contains suggestions for a more direct participation and influence of parents at schools, of patients in hospitals, and of citizens in local communities. Citizens should also be more directly involved in policy making of local governments. Many opinion makers point to the relevance of the internet to support citizen participation. The internet makes it possible for citizens to get information on policy issues, to compare data (about hospitals for example), and to participate in discussions. Finally, a third issue is the education of democratic citizens. Democratic participation should be learned at an early stage, at school and in the family. To conclude, the representative model dominates the debate on democracy among opinion makers. Elements of other models are less prominent and mostly mentioned by opinion makers with a specific (ideological) background. The findings are summarized in the first two columns of Table 2. Suggestions for Improving Democracy in Party Manifestoes Political parties take part in the public debate by debating issues in mass gatherings, on television and on the internet. Members of parliament, ministers, but also local representatives are the spokesmen of the party s ideas on these occasions. The main ideas of political parties can be found in party manifestoes, which try to give the public and other political parties an idea of what the party s priorities are and what their representatives intend to do if they were to ascend to power. Although manifestoes are read by relatively few electors, they constitute the major direct influence on what parties are seen as standing for (Budge, 1987, 18). Democracy and the role of citizens in politics is only one of the issues in party manifestoes. In the 2006 party manifestoes, the political parties present several suggestions for improving democracy, sometimes combining ideas from different models of democracy. I selected those parts of each manifesto that dealt with the issue of democracy and the role of citizens in politics. Participation and giving citizens a say were other keywords for selection. Except for the CDA party manifesto, these issues were put forward in all manifestoes in one chapter or section, usually with a title that clearly referred to the issue (see endnotes 5 10). The analysis of the party manifestoes, then, focused on those relevant chapters or sections. In order to determine the democracy model(s) to which a party manifesto was to be assigned, I reviewed this against the characteristics of the models presented in Table 1. The Christian Democratic party, CDA (Christen Democratisch Appe` l) makes a strong point of defending representative democracy and, at the same time, favours a democracy in which self-governing organizations bear
Table 2 The debate on democracy in the Netherlands Representative democracy Associative democracy Opinion makers Party manifestoes Democratic practices Background Issues Background Issues Examples All Mainly Christian democratic Working of parliament Quality and attitude of politicians Selection of leaders Revisions of institutions Transparency and accountability Political parties Responsibility to citizens and selfgoverning associations Cooperation between employers and workers organizations Encouraging a network society CDA, VVD, PvdA, SP,Chr Unie, GroenLinks, D66 CDA Revisions of institutions Direct elections (mayor, coalition) Transparency and accountability Responsibility to citizens and their organizations Private initiatives 484 Deliberative democracy Mainly academics Debate in parliament Citizens forums and panels Inclusion of all groups GroenLinks Public debate Open culture Citizen panels Participatory democracy Mainly left-wing Referendum and popular initiative Participation in local communities, schools, hospitals, etc. Education of democratic citizens PvdA, D66, Groen- Links, SP, Chr Unie Referendum Citizen panels (emphasis on decision-making) Participation in local communities Education of democratic citizens Neighbourhood budgets
485 responsibilities. 2 According to the CDA, a representative democracy is the best way of governing a country because it forces decisions to be taken in public which serve the general interest. Suggestions for improving the working of representative democracy are rather minimal: the CDA party manifesto of 2006 makes suggestions for a slight revision of the electoral system. Accordingly, the party also opposes the referendum, which would create vagueness about follow-up courses. 3 At the same time, Christian Democrats in the Netherlands have always strongly believed that self-governing associations should have an important role in a pluralist democracy (Michels, 2007). Also in the 2006 party manifesto, the CDA reasserts its belief in the strength of an associative democracy, favouring more responsibilities for citizens and their organizations. The party expects strong organizations between state and market (maatschappelijk middenveld) to be better able to contribute to good education, public health, and housing. The Labour Party, PvdA (Partij van de Arbeid), comes up with several suggestions for improving representative democracy, such as a revision of the electoral system, a reduction of the number of members of parliament, and a greater influence of the voters on the selection of the formateur 4 and the mayor. In addition to this, the PvdA wants to give people a greater say in concrete political decision-making by introducing participatory elements of democracy. 5 Therefore, the party advocates the institution of corrective referendums (after a decision has been taken) and encourages alternative forms of decision-making including citizen panels. Like the PvdA, the Socialist Party, SP (Socialistische Partij), makes suggestions both to strengthen the working of the representative democratic institutions, for example by giving voters the possibility to vote for a government coalition, and to supplement representative democracy by introducing elements of participatory democracy. 6 Elements of participatory democracy include proposals for a corrective referendum and a recall referendum. A recall referendum could, under very strict conditions, give power to the voters to send the government away and to call for new elections. Furthermore, the SP wants to give power and financial means directly to the people in neighbourhoods and to encourage participation of citizens in neighbourhoods and in councils of housing companies and schools. The SP is aware of the fact that political involvement and citizen participation ask for strong democratic abilities, in which dialogue, respect and conflict solution are important values. These should, therefore, be taught at school. The Liberal party, VVD (Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie), has, notwithstanding the word democracy in its name, not very much to add to the debate on democracy. The party manifesto of 2006 advocates a reduction of the number of members of parliament and for the direct election of mayors. 7
486 The Green Left party, in Dutch GroenLinks, combines in its programme elements of different models of democracy. 8 The party wants more influence for voters on the composition of government coalitions. GroenLinks is also a strong supporter of more direct elements of democracy, including the corrective and binding referendum. The party also favours more referendums on European issues and the introduction of the European citizens initiative (the initiative to get issues on the political agenda). More strongly than any of the other parties, GroenLinks emphasizes the role of an open public debate on political issues, not only in parliament, but also at alternative forums such as music festivals and network communities on the internet. Democracy demands an open culture in which different lifestyles, values and political opinions meet each other. The ChristenUnie (a conservative party with left-wing positions on socioeconomic issues) defends the representative democracy as the only possible answer to the complexity of policy issues. In the perception of the ChristenUnie, forms of direct democracy are only acceptable if these do not challenge the principle of representation. 9 Therefore, the ChristenUnie, for the first time, supports the introduction of the corrective referendum, but only under strict conditions. Finally, the Democratic Liberals, D66 (Democraten 66), have always been a strong supporter of the referendum and other forms of direct democracy, 10 to the extent that this has become one of their crown jewels ; or, in other words, the issue of democratic reforms has become one of the major themes of their political programme and policy. Other proposals seek to give citizens a more direct influence on the selection of political leaders, and further include the revision of the electoral system, and a call for more attention for public accountability on policy outputs. D66 is very explicit in rejecting a major role for the interest organizations of the poldermodel, that is, the trade unions and the employers organizations. To conclude, political parties present several suggestions for improving democracy, in which they combine ideas from different models of democracy. The representative model of democracy dominates and is present in all party manifestoes. The other democratic models are less present and more closely related to a specific political ideology. Thus, elements of the associative model can only be traced in the CDA party manifesto. The focus on associative elements corresponds to the Christian Democratic ideology in which selfgoverning associations are considered to be the core of society and pluralist democracy. Also, elements of the participatory model are only present in the manifestoes of the parties from the Left. And, except for the manifesto of GroenLinks, the deliberative concept of democracy is not an issue within political parties. The main findings are summarized in the third and fourth column of Table 2.
Democratic Practices Whereas in the public debate on democracy the representative model is dominant, in daily political life, and particularly in local politics, we can witness a large variety of initiatives and experiences that reveal elements of the other models of democracy. Often, elements of different models come in combination. This section presents three examples of democratic practices. 487 Citizen panels Citizen panels, also known as citizen juries, forums or deliberative polls, come in various forms. There is variation in the degree to which participation in the panel is open to every citizen, the stage of citizen participation in the decisionmaking process, and the extent to which citizens have the power to make final political decisions. However, there is one thing they have in common, namely the importance that is attached to the process of deliberation and free public reasoning. It is important to note that citizen panels are a different category than stakeholder dialogues and consultations, in the sense that, in the latter, stakeholders are represented, whereas in citizen panels individual citizens are expected to speak for themselves. There have been experiences with citizen panels in many countries, notably in the United States and Britain (Fishkin and Laslett, 2002). In the past decade, the Netherlands has had experience with citizen panels at both the regional (on regional development in the province of Flevoland for example, Huitema and Lavrijsen, 2006), and at the national level (a citizen jury was asked to advise the government about a new electoral system). Most experience, though, has been gained at the local level (Leyenaar, 2005; Grin et al., 2006; Van Stokkom, 2006). Citizen panels are meant to strengthen the deliberative character of policy making in order to come to better decisions that serve the public interest. These panels are closely linked to the deliberative model of democracy. In practice, the deliberative character of many citizen panels may be doubted. In a study on experiences with deliberative democracy, Van Stokkom provides some interesting examples of cases in which argument was scarce and a small minority of participants dominated the debate ( Van Stokkom, 2006, 25 63). This happens, particularly, in cases where participation is open to all citizens and where citizens do not share or have access to the same expert knowledge. In addition to the deliberative elements, citizen panels sometimes also share elements with the participatory model of democracy when the aim is to give citizens the power to influence political decisions. However, often the relation with the official decision-making process remains unclear.
488 Private initiatives of citizens Private initiatives of citizens are essential to a strong civil society ( Putnam, 2000; Dekker, 2002). Initiatives in neighbourhoods have often been started by the local government, welfare organizations, or other social organizations ( WRR, 2005). But there are also many examples of spontaneous initiatives of citizens, for example, coming together to keep a park in the neighbourhood, to help asylum seekers, or to organize a day trip for handicapped people. Characteristic of these initiatives is that they are local, small-scale initiatives of self-governing groups of citizens. Research on the Dutch case shows that the main aims of these spontaneous initiatives of citizens are to improve the quality of life in the neighbourhood and to take care of the vulnerable groups in society (Universiteit van Amsterdam/NICIS, 2006, 20). In most cases, experiences close to home are more important to galvanize people into action than national or global problems. Although these initiatives of citizens come from below, most initiatives or associations maintain contact with organizations in the outside world, with the local government and other organizations from which they expect (financial) support or just a listening ear. The aims vary. Examples of these kinds of initiative include residents associations, lobby associations for a playground or a building for cultural activities, local supporting associations for migrants or poor people, alternative public transport, cooperatives of artists, and education programmes for specific groups. Private initiatives of citizens clearly bear the characteristics of the associative model of democracy. But it can also very well be argued that there are links with the participatory model of democracy, when the focus shifts to individual participation and to decision-making in local communities, and even with the deliberative model, when on the role of debate and the democratic process within associations is taken into account. Neighbourhood budgets It is not difficult to find cases where individual citizens participate and have a direct say in decision-making. Examples of cases range from patients councils at hospitals and nursing homes, workers councils at the workplace, and parents and pupils councils at schools, to citizen participation in local policy making, or interactive policy making. Characteristic to interactive policy making is the fact that citizens and social organizations take an active role in the policy process at an early stage. This approach to policy making is considered to be particularly useful in circumstances where there are many stakeholders with conflicting interests, complex issues, and many solutions to the particular problem ( Walters et al., 2000). There is,
489 however, much variation in the actual influence of citizens on the final decision-making. Another way of giving citizens a greater say in local affairs is to allocate a budget directly to the residents of a neighbourhood who have a concrete proposal for improving the quality of life or the safety in that particular neighbourhood. Since the beginning of the new century, many cities in the Netherlands have been experimenting with neighbourhood budgets. 11 Budgets are allocated to such things as a playground for the youth, a work of art, or a facelift for a dilapidated square, park, or path. Always, the idea is that citizens not only conceive of a plan but are also responsible for its implementation. The element of direct participation and influence of citizens in spending a neighbourhood budget is closely linked to the participatory idea of democracy. But there are also elements of the deliberative model of democracy. After all, decision-making on the issue of how to spend the budget first requires organizing the process of coming to decisions. The right column of Table 2 summarizes the main findings. Conclusion The analysis clearly illustrated that, whereas in the theoretical debate on democracy a number of models have been debated, the representative model dominates the public debate on democracy in the Netherlands. While other models of democracy are not absent from the debate, they play only a minor role. The study further found that as far as elements from the other models of democracy occur in the debate, there is a strong link to the (ideological) background of the debaters. Thus, the opinion makers who use arguments from the representative model of democracy have various professional and political backgrounds, whereas the opinion makers arguing within the other democracy models have a more specific background: the associative concept of democracy is mainly debated among Christian Democrats, the participatory concept among opinion makers from the Left, and the deliberative concept among academics. A similar pattern has been found in the analysis of the party manifestoes: elements of the associative model can be found in the CDA party manifesto, elements of the participatory model are only present in the manifestoes of the parties from the Left, and the deliberative concept of democracy is almost absent. A striking finding is, furthermore, that political parties do not make any suggestions that affect their own position, whereas opinion makers make several suggestions to improve the role of political parties and the quality of individual politicians. Finally, although the representative model is dominant in the public debate on democracy, this article presents examples of democratic
490 practices in which, often a combination of, elements of other models of democracy can be traced. The conclusion that arguments on participation and democracy are modified by party ideology may also raise doubts on the future development of the debate on Dutch democracy. The views on democracy seem very fixed. The much less ideological democratic practices offer more hope for the development of new forms of democracy in which, often, elements of different models of democracy are combined. References Akkerman, T. (2006) Deliberatie en democratie. Een pleidooi voor vernieuwing van de politieke cultuur, in J. Grin, M. Hajer and W. Versteeg (eds.) Meervoudige democratie. Ervaringen met vernieuwend bestuur, Amsterdam: Aksant, pp. 34 46. Andeweg, R.B. and Irwin, G.A. (1993) Dutch Government and Politics, Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan. Becker, J. and Dekker, P. (2005) Beeld van beleid en politiek, in Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau De sociale staat van Nederland, Den Haag: SCP, pp. 328 362. Budge, I. (1987) The Internal Analysis of Election Programmes, in I. Budge, D. Robertson and D. Hearl (eds.) Ideology, Strategy and Party Change: Spatial Analyses of Post-war Election Programmes in 19 Democracies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 15 38. Daalder, H. (1966) The Netherlands: Opposition in a Segmented Society, in R.A. Dahl (ed.) Political Oppositions in Western Democracies, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, pp. 188 236. Dahl, R.A. (1956) A Preface to Democratic Theory, Chicago, IL.: The University of Chicago Press. Dekker, P. (2002) De oplossing van de civil society: over vrijwillige associaties in tijden van vervagende grenzen, Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau. Dekker, P. (2003) Afkeer van de politiek? Christen-democratische verkenningen 2003 (Winter): 30 36. Dekker, P. and van der Meer, T. (2004) Politiek vertrouwen 1997 2004, Tijdschrift voor de Sociale sector 2004 (December): 33 35. Elster, J. (ed.) (1998) Deliberative Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Engelen, E.R. and Sie Dhian Ho, M. (2004) Democratische Vernieuwing. Luxe of Noodzaak?, in Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid (WRR) E.R. Engelen and M.Sic Dhian Ho (eds.) De staat van de democratie. Democratie voorbij de staat, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, pp. 17 37. Fishkin, J.S. and Laslett, P. (eds.) (2002) Philosophy, politics & society, special issue, debating deliberative democracy, Political Philosophy, Vol. 10, No. 2. Gallagher, M., Laver, M. and Mair, P. (2006) Representative Government in Modern Europe, New York: McGraw-Hill Grin, J., Hajer, M. and Versteeg, W. (eds.) (2006) Meervoudige democratie. Ervaringen met vernieuwend bestuur, Amsterdam: Aksant. Gutmann, A. and Thompson, D. (2004) Why Deliberative Democracy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Held, D. (1987) Models of Democracy, Cambridge: Polity Press. Hendriks, F. (2006) Vitale democratie. Theorie van democratie in actie, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.